On Jun 6, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Volker Merschmann wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jim, all,
>>>
>>> 2011/6/4 Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>:
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I think Oracle's choice had more to do with IBM's
>>>>> recommendation, than taxes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been told that Oracle and TDF *were* in discussions but
>>>> that the demands by TDF were sufficiently unpalatable to Oracle
>>>> as to prevent any sort of agreement... IBM may have strongly
>>>> suggested the ASF as a backup, but we were the runner-up in
>>>> a sense. Taxes were not an issue...
>>>>
>>> I do not see where the demands were "unpalatable":
>>>
>> http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/06/publishing-our-recommendation-to-oracle/
>>>
>>> TDF just refused to pay for anything which is under contract of Oracle.
>>>
>>
>> Thx for the link. It is good to see TDF opening up regarding
>> what their original request was to Oracle. Subsequent discussions,
>> of course, are not known but so what. They are moot. For whatever
>> reason, Oracle did not think that TDF was the right place. That
>> ship has sailed. Time to figure out what to do now.
>>
>
> I asked, and apparently there were no subsequent discussions. But I agree,
> this ship has sailed and I'd be pleased to see this all move into a
> podlet...
I asked as well as was told otherwise... but again, it's moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
|