Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
121 messages Options
Next » 12345 ... 7 « Prev
Cor Nouws Cor Nouws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

BRM wrote (10-06-11 15:55)

> You know, usually when an organization (such as TDF) is legally owned by

You know, usually when you do not understand something, which is fully
understandable in the situations with the many efforts and developments
around LibreOffice and TDF, and where we cannot expect each and every
visitor to be on topic with discussions and posts on the various lists,
you go to the people and ask clarification.
That is what has been done and where has been quite abundant response
on, IMO.

Kindest regards,


--
  - Cor
  - http://nl.libreoffice.org


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by BRM

On 10 Jun 2011, at 14:55, BRM wrote:
>
> You know, usually when an organization (such as TDF) is legally owned by  
> another organization you list it at the bottom of the web-page where  you are
> stating information about copyright, trademarks, etc - e.g. TDF  is a wholly
> owned by FroDEV.

It's a complex world where different people do things different ways, especially when they live in a different country under different legal oversight. Personally I've found this a fascinating learning experience.

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Thorsten Behrens Thorsten Behrens
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by BRM
BRM wrote:
> Clearly marking the website, signatures, etc. for TDF would probably go a long
> ways in helping to end that conversation.
>
Since we're now down to debating cosmetics - could we please end the
discussion here & all get back to work? TDF will be legally
established in due course, quite a few people are working on that.

Thanks,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Volker Merschmann Volker Merschmann
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi,

2011/6/10 Thorsten Behrens <[hidden email]>:
> BRM wrote:
>> Clearly marking the website, signatures, etc. for TDF would probably go a long
>> ways in helping to end that conversation.
>>
> Since we're now down to debating cosmetics - could we please end the
> discussion here & all get back to work? TDF will be legally
> established in due course, quite a few people are working on that.
>

Some more fundamental (not just cosmetical) insights actually have
been published by the FSF:
http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice


Volker


--
Volker Merschmann
Member of The Document Foundation
http://www.documentfoundation.org

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2011/6/10 Thorsten Behrens <[hidden email]>:
>> BRM wrote:
>>> Clearly marking the website, signatures, etc. for TDF would probably go a long
>>> ways in helping to end that conversation.
>>>
>> Since we're now down to debating cosmetics - could we please end the
>> discussion here & all get back to work? TDF will be legally
>> established in due course, quite a few people are working on that.
>>
>
> Some more fundamental (not just cosmetical) insights actually have
> been published by the FSF:
> http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
>

I would recommend that TDF make their own determinations...
After all, it would be trivially easy for someone at the ASF
to make a counterpoint blogpost recommending AL... If people
are swayed by what FSF (or anyone else) says without giving
thoughtful and honest consideration for their *own* s/w,
then FOSS is in big, big trouble.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Pieter E. Zanstra Pieter E. Zanstra
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Thorsten Behrens
 > -----Original Message-----
> From: Thorsten [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> Since we're now down to debating cosmetics - could we please
> end the discussion here & all get back to work?

I could not agree more, having been part of a silly Intellectual Property
rights debate for seven years.

As a simple end user watching this space I am wondering about what is going
to happen with "my" bug:
http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94630 or
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34391 
By now I think most likely two incompatible solutions, but quite not
impossible either no solution at all.

So please re-focus the discussion on solutions rather than on hurdles.
Things are only impossible if people just don't want to cooperate.
PZ


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

mhenriday mhenriday
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
2011/6/10 Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>

>
> On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2011/6/10 Thorsten Behrens <[hidden email]>:
> >> BRM wrote:
> >>> Clearly marking the website, signatures, etc. for TDF would probably go
> a long
> >>> ways in helping to end that conversation.
> >>>
> >> Since we're now down to debating cosmetics - could we please end the
> >> discussion here & all get back to work? TDF will be legally
> >> established in due course, quite a few people are working on that.
> >>
> >
> > Some more fundamental (not just cosmetical) insights actually have
> > been published by the FSF:
> > http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice
> >
>
> I would recommend that TDF make their own determinations...
> After all, it would be trivially easy for someone at the ASF
> to make a counterpoint blogpost recommending AL... If people
> are swayed by what FSF (or anyone else) says without giving
> thoughtful and honest consideration for their *own* s/w,
> then FOSS is in big, big trouble.
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>

«After all, it would be trivially easy for someone at the ASF to make a
counterpoint blogpost recommending AL...» Isn't that precisely what you've
done in the above, Jim ? You seem to ignore the fact that FSF recommended
the following : «[a]nybody who plans to use or contribute to one of these
productivity suites should understand how these policies affect them, and
consider which better complement their own goals», which strikes me as both
objective and reasonable and then, on the basis of its own analysis,
suggested that LibreOffice contributes more to the cause of free software.
What's the beef ?...

Henri

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski

On 10 Jun 2011, at 16:53, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> I would recommend that TDF make their own determinations...
> After all, it would be trivially easy for someone at the ASF
> to make a counterpoint blogpost recommending AL... If people
> are swayed by what FSF (or anyone else) says without giving
> thoughtful and honest consideration for their *own* s/w,
> then FOSS is in big, big trouble.

I don't speak for TDF, so I can't comment on your advice, Jim. But I can't help thinking FSF were forced to make a statement by the repeated public misinterpretation of their licensing advice by folk driving the proposal at ASF.

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Thorsten Behrens Thorsten Behrens
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I would recommend that TDF make their own determinations...
>
Hi Jim - I thought we had? The many posts here & on the incubator
list should be testament of that.

> If people are swayed by what FSF (or anyone else) says without
> giving thoughtful and honest consideration for their *own* s/w,
>
You're not suggesting we're not thoughtful nor honest here, are you?
;)

Anyway - the FSF quote is in *support* of TDF's direction, not
*setting* TDF direction.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Uwe Altmann Uwe Altmann
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by BRM
Hi Ben

Am 10.06.11 15:55, schrieb BRM:
> You know, usually when an organization (such as TDF) is legally owned by  
> another organization …

I know it is difficult to understand if you're not in (german) legal
affairs: TDF once fonded as "Stiftung" (=foundation) will be on it's own
right and nor belong to not been owned by nobody but itself. What we see
now for transitional purposes is the solution of the "hen and
egg"-problem: You'll need a founder to found a foundation - and that is
FrODeV.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Uwe Altmann

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
BRM BRM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

----- Original Message ----

> From: Uwe Altmann <[hidden email]>
> Am 10.06.11 15:55, schrieb BRM:
> > You know, usually when an  organization (such as TDF) is legally owned by  
> > another  organization …
>
> I know it is difficult to understand if you're not in  (german) legal
> affairs: TDF once fonded as "Stiftung" (=foundation) will be  on it's own
> right and nor belong to not been owned by nobody but itself. What  we see
> now for transitional purposes is the solution of the "hen  and
> egg"-problem: You'll need a founder to found a foundation - and that  is
> FrODeV.

For whatever reason, no one seemed to get the point I was making in that e-mail,
so I will respond once and leave it -

I was not saying that TDF does not exist, or anything else.
I was making the observation that TDF's website & materials make little mention
of the fact that FroDeV is involved.
Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make that claim it
would be beneficial for TDF to update its website to make reference to the
existing legal status in the normal fashion of listing FroDeV and TDFs relation
with it in the little section where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all
mentioned on every page on the TDF website.

Again, just $0.02

Ben


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was making the observation that TDF's website & materials make little mention
> of the fact that FroDeV is involved.
> Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make that claim it
> would be beneficial for TDF to update its website to make reference to the
> existing legal status in the normal fashion of listing FroDeV and TDFs relation
> with it in the little section where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all
> mentioned on every page on the TDF website.

It's my feeling that people who have been following and contributing
to the project are pretty well aware of which organization is handling
the founding.

You can find some explicit explanations on the Challenge fund-raising website:

http://challenge.documentfoundation.org/why/

As one of the people who have contributed to maintaining the
LibreOffice websites, I'm guessing that perhaps we've been waiting for
the founding to arrive at its conclusion before drafting updated info.

But I don't think that any of the project contributors - whether full
TDF members or not - have any lack of faith in the goodwill and
diligence of the SC on the subject of setting-up the foundation and
establishing the bylaws. In fact, I've been keenly interested in the
subject myself (I've brought it up at past SC meetings as a community
member) and can tell you that things have actually proceeded faster
than was originally envisioned.

2 cents, and HTH. ;-)

--
David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:17 PM, David Nelson wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I was making the observation that TDF's website & materials make little mention
>> of the fact that FroDeV is involved.
>> Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make that claim it
>> would be beneficial for TDF to update its website to make reference to the
>> existing legal status in the normal fashion of listing FroDeV and TDFs relation
>> with it in the little section where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all
>> mentioned on every page on the TDF website.
>
> It's my feeling that people who have been following and contributing
> to the project are pretty well aware of which organization is handling
> the founding.
>

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think BRM's point wasn't
directed towards those who know, but rather instead the
large percentage of people out there who don't. There was,
and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully-
setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar
to what the ASF is). That perception was "beneficial" during
all the discussion and debate since it implied that, as
far as legal-status was concerned, TDF == The ASF and so
the discussion was able to be distilled down to copyleft
vs non-copyleft FOSS (as far as which foundation was "better"
for OOo)...

I am sure that someone on this list will see the above as
some sort of slam against TDF, but it's simply my interpretation
of what BRM was trying to say.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

BRM BRM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

----- Original Message ----

> From: Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>
> On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:17 PM, David Nelson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM <[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >> I was making the observation that TDF's website &  materials make little
>mention
> >> of the fact that FroDeV is  involved.
> >> Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_  make that claim
>it
> >> would be beneficial for TDF to update its website  to make reference to the
> >> existing legal status in the normal fashion  of listing FroDeV and TDFs
>relation
> >> with it in the little section  where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all
> >> mentioned on every page  on the TDF website.
> >
> > It's my feeling that people who have been  following and contributing
> > to the project are pretty well aware of which  organization is handling
> > the founding.
> >
>
> Not to beat a  dead horse, but I think BRM's point wasn't
> directed towards those who know,  but rather instead the
> large percentage of people out there who don't. There  was,
> and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully-
> setup,  self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar
> to what the ASF is).  That perception was "beneficial" during
> all the discussion and debate since  it implied that, as
> far as legal-status was concerned, TDF == The ASF and  so
> the discussion was able to be distilled down to copyleft
> vs  non-copyleft FOSS (as far as which foundation was "better"
> for  OOo)...
>
> I am sure that someone on this list will see the above as
> some  sort of slam against TDF, but it's simply my interpretation
> of what BRM was  trying to say.
>

+1

Ben


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Hi Jim, "BRM",

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 00:43, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There was,
> and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully-
> setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar
> to what the ASF is)

Well, that perception is not far off the mark. It is certainly
self-controlled and a stable project insofar as it has strong support
from the FOSS community at large and the active LibreOffice project
contributors.

I guess that the fact that it collected the 50,000 euros necessary for
its legal establishment in only 8 days, from a multitude of small
donations, and then received some ~40,000 euros more within a short
time is some proof of that.

Perhaps the fact that TDF/LibreOffice has done excellent work in
further developing the code base and issuing new releases is proof
that TDF - currently represented by the existing SC - has proved
worthy of that support.

Personally, I'm very happy with what's been achieved, and I'm
optimistic for the project's future.

Again, this is just my own 2 cents.

BTW, I'm very happy to welcome you here to chew the fat with us. If
you really feel you have a different path forward that you want to
follow, then I sincerely wish you well with the endeavour. But you
have a lot of running to do in every area to catch up with us, guys!
;-)
The competition will be interesting and probably not without
beneficial aspects. But my bet on long-term survival and concrete
results is on TDF/LibreOffice.

In any case, please take all the above as being meant in the
friendliest tone. :-)

--
David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 15:05, David Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Jim, "BRM",
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 00:43, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> There was,
>> and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully-
>> setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar
>> to what the ASF is)
>....
> Personally, I'm very happy with what's been achieved, and I'm
> optimistic for the project's future.

Nobody is denying that or arguing otherwise.

It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had
to explain all the details because they are not on the website.

You describe how all the committers and people on the steering
committee know these details. Well, of course. But what about all the
people at Apache who are trying to learn about the work you guys have
done here? Trying to learn the details of your Foundation, its
organization, and its (current) backing association? Trying to learn
who handles your donations, and how those proceeds are disbursed?

BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It
takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding.

>...
> BTW, I'm very happy to welcome you here to chew the fat with us. If
> you really feel you have a different path forward that you want to
> follow, then I sincerely wish you well with the endeavour. But you

We've chosen to take this path, yes... so thanks for the well wishes.

> have a lot of running to do in every area to catch up with us, guys!
> ;-)
> The competition will be interesting and probably not without

Our goal is not to "beat" you. This is not a competition. That is not
how Apache operates.

Apache is a charity conceived and constructed to provide code to the
world. We believe the best way to provide that code to *everybody* is
to do so under a permissive license. If we can create a release of
OOo, then we have performed our mission.

Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition. But
would not want to compete, regardless. We will produce the best OOo we
can. If yours is better, then we believe that is just fine. If you are
able to use some portion of our code to make your job easier, then
even better.

Cheers,
-g

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:

>
> Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.

What does it say about collaborating with others?  Anything?  (serious question, I have no idea).

S.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.
>
> What does it say about collaborating with others?  Anything?  (serious question, I have no idea).
>

In essence, as a public trust, the ASF must operate in a way
that does not favor one vendor or partner or collaborator
"over" another. This is one reason why the ASF was, for example,
unable to continue within the JCP EC, since our involvement
in there provided more "benefit" to Oracle than to anyone
else.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.
>>
>> What does it say about collaborating with others?  Anything?  (serious question, I have no idea).
>>
>
> In essence, as a public trust, the ASF must operate in a way
> that does not favor one vendor or partner or collaborator
> "over" another. This is one reason why the ASF was, for example,
> unable to continue within the JCP EC, since our involvement
> in there provided more "benefit" to Oracle than to anyone
> else.

Would that preclude treating TDF as a collaborative peer? Being a non-profit itself FrODeV is presumably bound by the same limitation so collaborating with it would not violate that requirement for neutrality.

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:

>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:09, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Our charitable status specifically precludes us from competition.
>>>
>>> What does it say about collaborating with others?  Anything?  (serious question, I have no idea).
>>>
>>
>> In essence, as a public trust, the ASF must operate in a way
>> that does not favor one vendor or partner or collaborator
>> "over" another. This is one reason why the ASF was, for example,
>> unable to continue within the JCP EC, since our involvement
>> in there provided more "benefit" to Oracle than to anyone
>> else.
>
> Would that preclude treating TDF as a collaborative peer? Being a non-profit itself FrODeV is presumably bound by the same limitation so collaborating with it would not violate that requirement for neutrality.
>

It would not prevent us from working with TDF at all in
the ways we've been discussing, no.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Next » 12345 ... 7 « Prev