Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
121 messages Options
Next » 1234567 « Prev
Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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?
>

If you had come up with a plan of merging the foundations, all these details
would have been worked through. I don't think it matters now given the fork.


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

You should have gotten your question answered before the proposal was
submitted for a vote.


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

Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation
difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you
aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend?

-Keith

--
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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 17:04, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> If you had come up with a plan of merging the foundations, all these details
> would have been worked through. I don't think it matters now given the fork.
>
>> BRM, Jim, and I are trying to say that that information is opaque. It
>> takes direct involvement from Florian to achieve understanding.
>
> You should have gotten your question answered before the proposal was
> submitted for a vote.

We got our answer (before the vote) because Florian explained it. Our
point is that other people visiting the site will not have Florian's
attention. This has nothing to do with Apache, except by way of
example and that Florian was engaged. Others will not be so lucky.

I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with
"merging", but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may
have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters).

In short: suggestions on website improvements, for an audience that we
weren't describing to David very well.

>> Our goal is not to "beat" you. This is not a competition. That is not
>> how Apache operates.
>>
>
> Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation
> difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you
> aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend?

We want to cooperate. It is quite possible, and there have been
several suggestions on ways to do that.

If cooperation doesn't happen, then you're simply talking co-existence.

Competition requires "intent", I believe. But we can choose to
disagree on that, I suppose.

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

Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> We got our answer (before the vote) because Florian explained it. Our
> point is that other people visiting the site will not have Florian's
> attention. This has nothing to do with Apache, except by way of
> example and that Florian was engaged. Others will not be so lucky.
>

It isn't very frequently that people with the OpenOffice trademark come
along.


>
> I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with
> "merging", but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may
> have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters).
>

They are irrelevant to you now that you aren't merging, and they would only
have been relevant to you if you had merged, and they aren't relevant to
typical people in the community so you can imagine why it is low priority.


>
> >> Our goal is not to "beat" you. This is not a competition. That is not
> >> how Apache operates.
> >>
> >
> > Your goal is not to beat LO, but by choosing a fork you make cooperation
> > difficult via license incompatibilities and social engineering. So if you
> > aren't cooperating or competing then what word would you recommend?
>
> We want to cooperate.
>

Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important
than your consequences.

-Keith

--
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 Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 17:52, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>...
>> I don't think the questions that I posed had anything to do with
>> "merging", but simply the kinds of curiosity that TDF supporters may
>> have (or those who may be interested in *becoming* supporters).
>
> They are irrelevant to you now that you aren't merging, and they would only
> have been relevant to you if you had merged, and they aren't relevant to
> typical people in the community so you can imagine why it is low priority.

Agreed.

>...
> Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less important
> than your consequences.

Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

Allen Pulsifer Allen Pulsifer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Brouwer
> Forking makes cooperation more expensive.
> Your intentions are less important than your consequences.

Hello Keith,

As long as you are hung up on forks, you might want to get your facts right.
Sun created the "official" OOo distribution when they open sourced
StarOffice.  Sun maintained control of the OpenOffice.org name, and made it
clear from the beginning that any contributions to the official OOo
distribution would only be accepted if they were accompanied by a copyright
assignment.  That system chugged along for many years, with varying levels
of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

I agree with you that fork has been created.  The seeds of that fork were
germinated in the Go-Oo project, which created patches and enhancements that
were not contributed back to the official OOo distribution.  That became a
full fork when the LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the
OOo source code into a new repository.  It was therefore TdF that created a
fork, by creating a new version of the source code and making changes that
they did not contribute back to the official distribution.  I make that
statement completely without making a value judgment whether that is a good
thing or a bad thing.  But if you are going to talk about the history of the
project and start saying "all forks are bad", you should at least get your
facts straight about who actually created the fork.  Also, if you are going
to talk about a split in the community, you should mention that TdF and
LibreOffice were created in secret, without any public discussions or
community input.  I say that again completely without making a value
judgment whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but again, when you
recount the history, you should do so honestly.

Best Regards,

Allen



--
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

Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Greg Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > than your consequences.
>
> > Forking makes cooperation more expensive. Your intentions are less
> important
>


> Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree.
>
>
From my side I would say it isn't that you guys don't have good energies and
ideas. It is that you announced the wrong plan, and then didn't fix it after
getting feedback.

-Keith

--
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
Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Allen Pulsifer <[hidden email]>wrote:

> > Forking makes cooperation more expensive.
> > Your intentions are less important than your consequences.
>
> Hello Keith,
>
> As long as you are hung up on forks, you might want to get your facts
> right.
> Sun created the "official" OOo distribution when they open sourced
> StarOffice.  Sun maintained control of the OpenOffice.org name, and made it
> clear from the beginning that any contributions to the official OOo
> distribution would only be accepted if they were accompanied by a copyright
> assignment.  That system chugged along for many years, with varying levels
> of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
>
> I agree with you that fork has been created.  The seeds of that fork were
> germinated in the Go-Oo project, which created patches and enhancements
> that
> were not contributed back to the official OOo distribution.  That became a
> full fork when the LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the
> OOo source code into a new repository.  It was therefore TdF that created a
> fork, by creating a new version of the source code and making changes that
> they did not contribute back to the official distribution.  I make that
> statement completely without making a value judgment whether that is a good
> thing or a bad thing.  But if you are going to talk about the history of
> the
> project and start saying "all forks are bad", you should at least get your
> facts straight about who actually created the fork.  Also, if you are going
> to talk about a split in the community, you should mention that TdF and
> LibreOffice were created in secret, without any public discussions or
> community input.  I say that again completely without making a value
> judgment whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, but again, when you
> recount the history, you should do so honestly.
>
>
I have followed somewhat the history of this codebase for the past 5 years,
but thank you for explaining it.

Yes, TDF might have been done in secret initially, but everything starts out
as an idea in someone's head and therefore a secret. Today, they are very
open.

It isn't that I am "hung up" on forks. I spent years writing code in line
layout and text editing and know that is but a tiny piece of this codebase.
Thousands of people could get lost in this technology. This codebase is 10M
lines which means this fork is 100x times more expensive than typical. (And
no one inside LibreOffice was requesting one.) It is the size that inspires
me to get involved.

I also make more posts because I'm amazed that some "leaders" in our
movement with the pedigree of IBM are actually hindrances. I see a story
worthy of the New York Times. In fact, I have a connection ;-) I also want
this technology to get better and I imagine what would happen if LibreOffice
got a bunch of new contributors as of yesterday. This was an alternative
plan.

-Keith

--
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 Allen Pulsifer
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> The seeds of that fork were germinated in the Go-Oo project, which
> created patches and enhancements that were not contributed back to
> the official OOo distribution.  That became a full fork when the
> LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the OOo source
> code into a new repository.
>
Hi Allen - will that story never die? The creation of the TDF and
LibreOffice was a movement far above and beyond Go-Oo. It just
happened to assimilate that code (and much more).

> Also, if you are going to talk about a split in the community, you
> should mention that TdF and LibreOffice were created in secret,
> without any public discussions or community input.
>
Factually incorrect. Large parts of the community were involved
setting up the idea - but you don't discuss e.g. trademark issues on
a public list, if you want to stand a chance actually obtaining it.
What's more, and pointed out in this very thread - TDF is still in
the process of being fully established, and *all* things, like
bylaws, location etc. were available for discussion on public lists.

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

Cor Nouws Cor Nouws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Thorsten Behrens wrote (15-06-11 09:50)

> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> The seeds of that fork were germinated in the Go-Oo project, which
>> created patches and enhancements that were not contributed back to
>> the official OOo distribution.  That became a full fork when the
>> LibreOffice project was started by importing all of the OOo source
>> code into a new repository.
>>
> Hi Allen - will that story never die? The creation of the TDF and
> LibreOffice was a movement far above and beyond Go-Oo. It just
> happened to assimilate that code (and much more).

I can, have to, testimony that.
I was involved in already two serious discussions about starting a
foundation (after all those years) when there was even not a single hair
on my head thinking about go-oo.

--
  - 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

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

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
Allen Pulsifer wrote
creating a new version of the source code and making changes that
they did not contribute back to the official distribution.
I think this is the most serious accusation and yet nobody bothered to comment...

I'm confused on how a modification can be contributed back if the developer chooses not to sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) under which the copyright is assigned to the developer and to Oracle...
Florian Effenberger Florian Effenberger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Greg Stein
Hi Greg,

Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-14 17.09:
> 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.

I guess the truth lies in between. :-)

Indeed, we seem to lack some comprehensible page directly reachable with
all the details. However, we have been regular announcing status and
facts via e-mail, our blog, social networks, and the donations
("challenge") page has also some background on it.

I would say anyone who looked a bit at the project would find out
things. I agree, however, at a first glance, things might indeed be a
bit hard to discover, and looking at how fast things went at Apache, I
understand that things needed explanation.

We should indeed add a short note to http://www.documentfoundation.org/faq/

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <[hidden email]>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
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

Mark Wielaard Mark Wielaard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] The Document Foundation background

Hi Florian,

On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 11:57 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote:

> Indeed, we seem to lack some comprehensible page directly reachable with
> all the details. However, we have been regular announcing status and
> facts via e-mail, our blog, social networks, and the donations
> ("challenge") page has also some background on it.
>
> I would say anyone who looked a bit at the project would find out
> things. I agree, however, at a first glance, things might indeed be a
> bit hard to discover, and looking at how fast things went at Apache, I
> understand that things needed explanation.
>
> We should indeed add a short note to http://www.documentfoundation.org/faq/

And if possible please also add a "News from the TDF Blog" widget to the
frontpage like already on libreoffice.org. Then it would be immediately
clear that The Document Foundation is a lively and active entity.
Currently it takes some poking around from the homepage to finally end
up on http://blog.documentfoundation.org/ where all the latest news is.

Cheers,

Mark


--
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

In reply to this post by Keith Curtis

On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:00 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
> \
> I also make more posts because I'm amazed that some "leaders" in our
> movement with the pedigree of IBM are actually hindrances. I see a story
> worthy of the New York Times. In fact, I have a connection ;-)

And I'm surprised that some "leaders" are more concerned about PR
and marketing and being perceived as something they are not,
rather than trying to be more inclusive to the much larger
eco-system in which they live.

Sometimes personal ideological stances blind people so much
that they forget what's important: it's building FOSS that
changes the world, not "sticking" it to companies, people
or entities that one feels slighted by.

--
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

May I suggest we "call time"[1] on this discussion please?

S.


[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please

--
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

Sam Ruby-2 Sam Ruby-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
> May I suggest we "call time"[1] on this discussion please?

+1

> S.
>
> [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Time%20Gentlemen%20Please

- Sam Ruby

--
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

In reply to this post by Florian Effenberger
----- Original Message ----

> From: Florian Effenberger <[hidden email]>
> Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-14 17.09:
> > 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.
>
> I guess the truth lies in  between. :-)
>
> Indeed, we seem to lack some comprehensible page directly  reachable with all
>the details. However, we have been regular announcing status  and facts via
>e-mail, our blog, social networks, and the donations ("challenge")  page has
>also some background on it.
>

My primary point is that to side-line the discussion (of which Greg was
responding to, and I assume you are too) the text at the bottom of each webpage
on the LO website which presently reads as follows:


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless
otherwise specified, all text       and images on this website are licensed
under the Creative Commons       Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does
not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the GNU
Lesser General       Public License (LGPLv3).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks. Their
respective logos and icons are subject to       international copyright laws.
The use of these therefore is subject to our trademark policy.



should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it
is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks,
etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal
entity, and not something that is simply a project put together by a lot of
people without any legal standing. (The above was specifically taken from the  
http://www.documentfoundation.org/faq/ webpage.)

Note: I am not saying anything about the actual legal standing of TDF in this
e-mail; just pointing out how that legal standing could be _better_ communicated
to by-standers and visitors of the TDF/LO websites - of which there are many
more than are known by the community, or participate in the community - e.g.
reporters that go on the website for some tidbit of information, or someone
looking to simply download LO for use.

$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

Florian Effenberger Florian Effenberger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The Document Foundation background

In reply to this post by Mark Wielaard
Hello,

Mark Wielaard wrote on 2011-06-15 14.34:
> And if possible please also add a "News from the TDF Blog" widget to the
> frontpage like already on libreoffice.org. Then it would be immediately
> clear that The Document Foundation is a lively and active entity.
> Currently it takes some poking around from the homepage to finally end
> up onhttp://blog.documentfoundation.org/  where all the latest news is.

Cc'ing the website list, so they can jump in. :-)

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <[hidden email]>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
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

Florian Effenberger Florian Effenberger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by BRM
Hi,

BRM wrote on 2011-06-15 15.47:
> should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it
> is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks,
> etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal

hm, isn't this the exact information contained in the imprint? It reads:

[...]
The party responsible for the content of this website is:

Freies Office Deutschland e.V.
Riederbergstr. 92
65195 Wiesbaden
Deutschland/Germany

E-mail address: [hidden email]
Website: http://www.frodev.org

Vertretungsberechtigter Vorstand/Board of Directors:
Thomas Krumbein (Vorsitzender), Jacqueline Rahemipour, Florian
Effenberger (Anschrift jeweils wie oben)
[...]

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <[hidden email]>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
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

Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
the content and they are responsible for the content on
the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure
at all.

On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote:

> Hi,
>
> BRM wrote on 2011-06-15 15.47:
>> should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it
>> is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks,
>> etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal
>
> hm, isn't this the exact information contained in the imprint? It reads:
>
> [...]
> The party responsible for the content of this website is:
>
> Freies Office Deutschland e.V.
> Riederbergstr. 92
> 65195 Wiesbaden
> Deutschland/Germany
>
> E-mail address: [hidden email]
> Website: http://www.frodev.org
>
> Vertretungsberechtigter Vorstand/Board of Directors:
> Thomas Krumbein (Vorsitzender), Jacqueline Rahemipour, Florian Effenberger (Anschrift jeweils wie oben)
> [...]
>
> Florian
>
> --
> Florian Effenberger <[hidden email]>
> Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
> Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
> Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff
>
> --
> 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
>


--
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

Allen Pulsifer Allen Pulsifer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Thorsten Behrens
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> ...you don't discuss e.g. trademark issues on a public list, if you want
to stand a chance actually obtaining it.

I can see how you might believe this, but I'm not sure it is grounded in
fact or experience.  In fact, look at where we ended up:

- Oracle pulled all resources from the project.
 
- TdF did not obtain the trademark or the openoffice.org domain.

- The community ended up fractured.

Regardless of who's "fault" this is, had the discussions been done in public
and involved all of the community instead of a select group, the results
might have been different.  That's water under the bridge at this point, but
given the results, a little bit of introspection and willingness to make
accommodations might benefit everyone.



--
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 » 1234567 « Prev