openoffice-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rod Lockwood" <>
Subject Re: users Digest 28 Nov 2012 19:50:51 -0000 Issue 232
Date Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:11:00 GMT
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:50:51 -0500,  
<> wrote:

> Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed squarely
> where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have
> automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo, chosen to
> assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and running  
> and
> which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to assign  
> all
> the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would perpetuate the
> fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison....
> Henri

Another way to end the forking would be for the Document Foundation to  
swallow their pride and join Apache. Why insist on playing Oracle’s game?  
Why insist that there needs to be a fork when you could simply join Apache  
and make OpenOffice better? Simply because you feel slighted or wanted to  
be the heroes?

Rod Lockwood

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message