Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of gstein@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:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=ZGX1Vg+LYDCpqzPU8y7uNas4ss6VchCJRNimDGD9Qx8r5qb0Z2sUQsiDTjO2mq/MpE
         qW73HBzvd8NkhViUC21T9ptPFANM3PG9zFV1ju1Nr7wwPArvYGadEPglEkk/93rBrqFj
         rL38JPP8/D5NIgGWSSY26x+iKZ9osgzcrB8Uo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4DED19C5.4020005@ungoverned.org>
References: <BANLkTinqd4ZC0gembzBx4b6qvFaBsQ3zBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim2i_jZwPxyNxW8rt=f+L=oJVbktQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DEBE6A5.2020800@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTimCHzFKj3WFs9qV-iXOObVkJW7Abw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DEC5AE6.3070303@gmail.com>
	<4DEC6296.9060001@rowe-clan.net>
	<4DEC69ED.3000800@gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinAPUgu63ukG1AJR_cZwYSE+tKFwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DEC732F.3000008@rowe-clan.net>
	<4DEC7844.7060102@gmail.com>
	<4DECE1E5.1010608@ungoverned.org>
	<BANLkTikpDf6To2UVioEoiht3SUDRCoOXGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DECEBE9.2010407@ungoverned.org>
	<BANLkTik6dFjYLjPWmyH-DKEDwK5JqTjaNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DECF4A1.8090002@ungoverned.org>
	<BANLkTi=f-iCfdeQYPMw=z3P12xJeAbp+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinMnEVfGgrfmPs2P2s0LPzzUmdqXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DED19C5.4020005@ungoverned.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 14:26:04 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTimjqApRvcTmac-z4qypX9Ey2xJ-_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OpenOffice: were are we now?
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 14:17, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> On 6/6/11 13:50, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> How about we drop these lines of discussion, and simply follow Ross'
>> advice and focus on "what is needed by the Incubator PMC to accept
>> this proposal?"
>
> While I agree that a lot of this discussion is pointless, I guess it is just
> difficult to know where to precisely draw the line since my original
> response was to Phil Steitz (who is on the IPMC), where he at least implied
> if not directly stated that this proposal was exploitative and that was
> potential grounds for rejecting it.
>
> The difficulty in discussing this is because there are so many emotional
> minefields (and probably rightly so) for those involved so it is easy for
> some people to assume the worst in what gets said/written. For me, I have no
> emotion invested in this at all. I'm just a user of OOo since 2000 and a guy
> who likes the Apache license.

Agreed. Personally, I use OOo sparingly, as I prefer Google Docs. My
interest is largely spurred by the attraction of being able to apply
ALv2 to this awesome piece of software. I believe that will be a
*huge* enabler for the software world. It is vanishingly rare to have
such a situation. "Epic" might be a good word :-) ... and who
*doesn't* want to be part of something like that?

Cheers,
-g

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