Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=I0+RZCjEwVwx05Dvlmcp5MMQVWgjYSGJjt+rOMR0v1ZA8JreNcgwy1Y4wm+DGIod8w
         qPqH1QnqXbASn/0yTNrPUsFJ9FLqMDS7NvXWNRU085GYvk33yNEEHLeB+4yax7YDy/5O
         kRWzqrUCcVR5dMMtYsnrrLySaOLYlmE0Kqiio=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <4DEA257C.60805@nouenoff.nl>
References: <4DEA07C7.8050901@ping.de>
	<BANLkTi=rie7ByxNWHygao0YnZZX_1_pvkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DEA257C.60805@nouenoff.nl>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 10:00:04 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=FFf5Q3KhcoiemanpwGWAPfT00YA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus
 Symphony
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws <oolst@nouenoff.nl> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz<A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
>> =C2=A0wrote:
>
>>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>>
>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
>
> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.

This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives.  I will
start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective.  I
will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner.

In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a
license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being
inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike.

I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a
license choice.   While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.

Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective=
?

> Cor
>
> --
> =C2=A0- http://nl.libreoffice.org
> =C2=A0- giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -

- Sam Ruby

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