incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2011 06:22:10 GMT
On Jun 4, 2011 6:25 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
wrote:
>...
> 2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly
awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single
platform and programming model.  In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up
C++ and the Java dependencies are shrinking.  And for a reference
implementation, or the parts of Apache OpenOffice that could serve that
purpose, I don't think that will fly at all.

I'm not sure that I've parsed and understood this. Apache should only ship
one binary? Or it should only go Java, or only C++? And is that just
(reference) parts, or how we handle the whole distro?

.... I'm not trying to poke fun of you here. Just trying to understand where
you're going.

Thanks,
-g

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message