Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4423D17E91 for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:42:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 53480 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2015 17:42:58 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-dev-archive@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 53392 invoked by uid 500); 2 Feb 2015 17:42:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 53379 invoked by uid 99); 2 Feb 2015 17:42:57 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:42:57 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of simon@webmink.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.53] (HELO mail-la0-f53.google.com) (209.85.215.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:42:32 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id gq15so43389008lab.12 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:40:15 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=S5/oWQzgiW3woDAwqB1np4J8PYZLSxK9uKthPHeWxQ0=; b=iF9oqPNO6ZwBaY7nDk0QUtGv3LEWY82FHS1PcsW18cVySZYcE/CGn/G6BzpUz2mSHa J+mo+9GAgIR0ZWfRHh1WftBOqMEx3TUq24oyWO0XQ7ke8LWyJbpAWwrjxxp4+VQWHtbN cSrdKKNbH5ITZRRbBbKOfo7IY89B+jjdATZBvIEBir/Hhv6ytBeADSY00ZZyPFFkXxya FvDoGK65Wy9zE0x7w7+v1JPhst9SWYPfRZvI2bZmeNdm9YgeEpmDCkMr13tk6t3npPdI wuTfRn+7gCnsKrk+v0vpPcCDtT5FkHaTU1U8aVl4OJvE4PjdEjLmmm+J6VHGt9pyk5Qe reog== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQRkdBQx1v45DWJmgBTykXcvGPvGYBgI7t7PzA8mz3QFyAhNc46w1tx9UChtzqPw31zPOY X-Received: by 10.152.29.6 with SMTP id f6mr9391464lah.82.1422898815416; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:40:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.141.6 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 09:39:55 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [81.106.0.251] In-Reply-To: References: <54CBB951.8070907@apache.org> <006201d03ccc$68262670$38727350$@apache.org> <54CECE72.3020404@apache.org> From: Simon Phipps Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 18:39:55 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Inappropriate "Compliance Costs" To: dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c78a71d01b050e1e72e6 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e0158c78a71d01b050e1e72e6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti > wrote: > > > >> The page provides relevant information in a bad way (tone and wording of > >> the above list would be OK, for example). It is by keeping it as it is > that > >> we play the game of haters. I'll propose a rewrite next weekend. > > > > > > That sounds a good move, Andrea. However, one question that needs asking > is > > why the AOO project (as opoosed to Apache in general) needs this page at > > all. Now that LibreOffice uses the Mozilla license (which is not known > for > > compliance risks), which GPL-licensed suite is this page helping users > > avoid? > > > > There is no mention of LO on this page, nor any suggestion of it. > I did not say it did. I am a regular contributor to this project and my comments are in that capacity, not as a representative of anyone else. My question stands. S. --089e0158c78a71d01b050e1e72e6--