incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Question to IBM regarding license of Lotus Symphony
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2011 14:00:04 GMT
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Cor Nouws <> wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote (04-06-11 13:35)
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Andreas Kuckartz<>
>>  wrote:
>>> If yes: which licenses would IBM be willing to consider ?
>> Is there any reason to believe that the Apache License, Version 2.0 is
>> not an appropriate choice in this situation?
> Yes. As expressed by many on this list and elsewhere: the Apache license
> policy does not match for at least part of the LibreOffice project.
> So starting with finding a common ground first, rather than starting with
> the Apache model, would have been a better approach, IMO.

This question can be looked at from multiple perspectives.  I will
start by acknowledging your perspective as a valid perspective.  I
will close by asking that you acknowledge mine in a likewise manner.

In order to cast the widest possible net, it is important to pick a
license that seeks to permit the widespread use of the code, being
inclusive of both Free and proprietary software products alike.

I fully understand that that is just one possible criteria for a
license choice.   While other choices may make sense depending on the
specific circumstances, a necessary consequence of making a choice
that does not cast the widest possible net is fragmentation.

Before proceeding, can I get you to acknowledge that as a valid perspective?

> Cor
> --
>  -
>  - giving its foundation :: The Document Foundation -

- Sam Ruby

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message