Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Charles-H. Schulz <
charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Jim,
>
> I do not know who made these assertions to this entity, however it is
> really important to understand that it was not the Document
> Foundation. We have never been in contact with such parties.
>
> Let me stress again that it is necessary for this entity to contact us

directly.
>

It's beginning to be clearer and clearer that the "entity" does not wish to
be named as I think at least 10-15 times in this thread the information has
been requested but has subtly been ignored by the OP.

IMO (just to be clear to OP - I do not speak on behalf of the TDF as a
whole) the thread should be closed at this point in time as we're up to 30
posts with a circular pattern - OP requests information about hypothetical
contributor under dual or tri license, TDF requests potential contributors
to contact TDF directly, OP goes back to requesting information.

The whole thread seems quite strange to me as there appears to be an effort
to hide who is actually thinking of contributing.

Best,
Joel
-- 
*Joel Madero*
LibreOffice QA Volunteer
jmadero.dev@gmail.com

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted