Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 05:46:22 +0200,
"M. Fioretti" <> a écrit :

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 13:27:55 PM +0200, Charles-H. Schulz
( wrote:

"M. Fioretti" <> a écrit :

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 12:00:56 PM +0200, Charles-H. Schulz
( wrote:

On the other hand, I and others do not tolerate being "fired" by
Oracle. Resigning is one thing, being kicked out is another one.
Resigning is a logical consequence of our actions that will
actually happen soon, being kicked out and accepting it means
we acknowledge that Oracle has the right of life and death over
the OOo community. Good thing we went to open the Document
Foundation then!

       You wanted since the beginning Oracle to fire you, to prove
       that they are indeed tyrants (which they proved quite well,

       And this is the only reason why such a logical consequence
of your action as resigning didn't happen simultaneously to the
       announcement of TDF. I honestly can't imagine any other
-in French we say that there is "l'art et la manière". You can send
me a private message, as an Oracle employee, asking me : "so
Charles, when are you guys going away?" but if you send a public
message kicking us out on vague grounds, ignoring our very own
guidelines, that's very different.


of course it's very different, but you're simply changing the subject
IMO. The real question was not "did Oracle behave well last saturday?"
When I started this thread I was really not interested in debating HOW
Oracle implemented the firing, resignation or whatever we'll call
it. I didn't mean to ask that.

The real question was "why didn't the TDF founders who have/had
official roles in OOo publicly resign from those roles on Sept 28th,
one second BEFORE announcing the birth of TDF? Would'nt it have been
much more proper, considering that creating TDF is basically saying in
public "the way Oracle is handling OOo sucks so much that we can't
take it anymore"? Why all this surprise now?"

You can't justify with something that A (badly) did 3 weeks later
something else that B didn't do (but should have done, IMHO) 3 weeks
earlier. Unless the reason B didn't act then was just to cause that
specific reaction in A now.

The fact that, eventually, Oracle handled this matter beyond
expectations, that is doing just what it had been stimulated to do,
but in the worst possible manner for Oracle's image, is a _separate_

Anyway, what's done it's done. I (and then Ramon) have explained why
we think not resigning immediately was bad. You have answered. Let's
move on.

Well, when we announced TDF it was not clear what Oracle would choose.
Besides, some of us were still contributing to OOo (localization, etc.)
and having resigned just before would have clearly signified that we
were not interested in OOo anymore. 




E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send 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.