On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
'independent' part is important.
Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to
scrutiny and beyond the control of any interested party -
transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation
can be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system
of rules contains within it the game that plays it and ultimately
subverts it". But it will indeed be good when TDF is able to
complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.
Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even
a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded
to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure
that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless
claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip
that in the bud.
I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any
corporate entity - it's obviously almost impossible for that happen.
The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, and all rule-
based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they
are fully understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so.
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