incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2011 06:22:10 GMT
On Jun 4, 2011 6:25 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
> 2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly
awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single
platform and programming model.  In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up
C++ and the Java dependencies are shrinking.  And for a reference
implementation, or the parts of Apache OpenOffice that could serve that
purpose, I don't think that will fly at all.

I'm not sure that I've parsed and understood this. Apache should only ship
one binary? Or it should only go Java, or only C++? And is that just
(reference) parts, or how we handle the whole distro?

.... I'm not trying to poke fun of you here. Just trying to understand where
you're going.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message