On 6 June 2011 05:16, Norbert Thiebaud <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
On 5 June 2011 14:10, todd rme <email@example.com> wrote:
If that means using some licenses that are
less than ideal from a philosophy point of view then so be it.
That argument cut both way... except that apparently in your model,
'philosophies' or more exactly 'principles'
It's not a model, its about how different individuals will look at things in
a complex situation.
should be dropped for the 'greater good' as long as these are not _your_
I'm not asking anyone to change their principles or drop anything. Maybe it
is a language thing, I'm saying that this inevitably happens. It is a
complex situation and some people (not necessarily you) might not be aware
of all the possible consequences of particular actions. I'm not, I like
everyone is making best guesses. Discussion and trying out ideas can help.
It is entirely up to you to decide your own course of action.
and as a side note...
* I find it extremely arrogant and insulting for a project that hasn't even
built anything yet to self-proclaim itself as 'upstream'.
I'm not a member of ASF. I can see that a consequence of their license
compared to the LGPL means they would have to be upstream in a shared code
relationship. Its just a simple practical consequence of the licenses. If
TDF contributors decide they don't want that there will likely end up 2
divergent code bases. That is why I say there is a dilemma. Ok, ASF might
vote no to the code going into the incubator but then there is a risk that
Oracle gives the code to someone else, possibly TDF but I wouldn't bet my
house on that. It may well end up somewhere a lot more damaging to LO.
* I find the argument: 'it's not our fault, Oracle made us do it by
releasing they code under AL2" very unconvincing.
I feel it is like saying.. well Joe offered me that present wrapped in my
favorite color... it was a loaded gun without safety... what else could I
but start shooting ? You're entitled to do as you want... but this attempt
to wash your hand of any responsibility for the consequences of your
I have to reiterate, I'm an OOo community member not an Apache member. I'm
not personally washing my hands of anything, I'm trying to work out the
least bad option in a complicated situation. I might be wrong but it seems
to me that whatever happens there is likely to be an OOo Apache project and
if there isn't, there is high risk of something much more damaging. You and
others might see it differently. That's politics.
and even better to preemptively point a finger to the group that
has been working very hard to get that stick out of the proverbial mud it
was in, is - how to I put that nicely - objectionable...
PS: when I use 'you' above, I don't mean necessarily _you_ personally, but
_you_ as in the group that promote this move.
I'm not particularly promoting the move, I think that it is probably
inevitable and given that this is beyond my control what is the best that
can be done to keep a strong FOSS office product. To me that and such a
products support of odf is the most important consideration. Others might
have different priorities.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
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
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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