Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4DEDE244.9000104@nouenoff.nl>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:33:08 +0200
From: Cor Nouws <oolst@nouenoff.nl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OOo - Lines in the sand and pre-determined conclusions...
References: <CMECLHIGIKFCOPHDFPNOOEILLJAB.noel@devtech.com>
In-Reply-To: <CMECLHIGIKFCOPHDFPNOOEILLJAB.noel@devtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Noel J. Bergman wrote (07-06-11 02:03)

Michael Meeks:
>>> "I do not believe the ASF is likely to provide a good home for
>>> the OO.o project in the long run."

You:
> I agree; you draw the same inference that I do: he means that a
> non-copyleft license is the reason for (predicted eventual) failure.

Is 'Not likely to be a good home' the same as 'failure' ? Sure not in 
this case. It just means that the Apache solution does not cater for an 
important part of the community.

> That attitude is most likely why (IMO) the "obvious" candidate wasn't
> used when Oracle decided to transfer OpenOffice.

Even more speculations, LOL
And OT (interesting how this whole subject drives me/you/others this route).

> Licensing matters.  IBM and others prefer an Open Source license,
> which allows a level playing field, rather than the inequity of
> GPL+proprietary, but they are not interested sharing everything.

A know discussion indeed.

Cheers,

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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org