Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Andrea,

On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:45 +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
everybody (now!) knows the priority of the Document Foundation
has been to stick to the licenses it had unilaterally chosen, before
discussing any further options; this is perfectly understandable and
acceptable of course.

        By unilaterally chosen - the reality included private discussion with
and approval from IBM :-) but - sure ... we had spent a good while
hammering this out in advance.

By the way, I was never approached for talks
on this issue, but I wouldn't have had much more to say about this and I
see no reasons for reopening issues (like licensing and copyright
agreements) that have been superseded by history.

        Thanks :-)


--  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.