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

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Harold Fuchs
<> wrote:
don't have a case and should return to the fold. So, why don't the LO folk
do a deal with Apache, combine the best bits of OOo with LO to get back to a
single "product" and form jointly with the Apache folk an "LO Foundation".
It seems completely crazy to have two sets of developers and two sets of
code. All that does is sow FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) in the minds of

because of the license change? Why would you want to use apache2.0
license? I would prefer gpl over that or lgpl.


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.