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

Thorsten Behrens wrote:
hm, I guess most rules can be gamed, by any sufficiently determined
adversary - so I would favour simple, effective bylaws, and use
common sense otherwise.

Additionally, you want to provide the proverbial Big Corp some
incentive to join - note that this was one specific shortcoming of
the OOo project. If they don't see a chance to have at least some
say, why should they sponsor developers in the first place?

Sorry, but I still see in your words the same misunderstanding between Foundation and Community that generated my initial reply in this thread.

IMO, if a corporation wants to have a word in a decision about where the project goes, it should join the Foundation and respect its rules.

Any other type of contribution is surely appreciated but, IMO, it's very far from granting a *right* to influence where the project goes.

Maybe, this consideration depends on what foundation are in my country: very strong and well defined legal entities that are different from a simple association.

Sincerely, I still see the "Foundation affair" a bit too foggy and I'm not sure I'll like it at the end.

Gianluca Turconi

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.