Contractual obligations?

Posted Aug 20, 2015 4:45 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
In reply to: Contractual obligations? by jimjag
Parent article: Schaller: An Open Letter to Apache Foundation and Apache OpenOffice team

At the time that Oracle was looking for a place to donate OO, TDF did not exist.

Odd that you would say that shortly after linking to mails from the time on a list called tdf-discuss. Yes, the legalities weren't yet done, but TDF very much existed.

Contractual obligations?

Posted Aug 20, 2015 13:03 UTC (Thu) by jimjag (guest, #84477) [Link] (3 responses)

I wrote:

"TDF did not exist. There was no legal entity to donate it to."

Which is true and was the whole point. Yet you conveniently chose to note quote *the exact next sentence* which ties it together. If the TDF had existed, as a *legal entity*, then it is possible that Oracle could have donated OO to it. But Oracle also wanted OO to be under a permissive ALv2 (or similar) license.

Contractual obligations?

Posted Aug 20, 2015 17:24 UTC (Thu) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (2 responses)

In all your arguments above, you skirt one point: LibreOffice had been developing the OOo codebase further, had one release six months previous to the incubation suggestion, and even before LO existed, go-oo.org had been making contributions (merged into LO but not into OOo or AOO) that had been adopted by most Linux distros. The incubator proposal made no mention of any of this. What was the proposal? To throw all this in the trashcan? To pretend it never happened? Because there is no mention, in anything you linked, on how to incorporate it into AOO. If there was no such plan, who can imagine the incubator proposal was in good faith? Whether TDF had been legally incorporated or not is a red herring. The codebase had been moving along without Sun's/Oracle's help for a while already.

Contractual obligations?

Posted Aug 25, 2015 17:07 UTC (Tue) by jimjag (guest, #84477) [Link] (1 responses)

Not a red herring but a substantial fact to the whole issue.

Contractual obligations?

Posted Aug 25, 2015 17:15 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

Does one read that as saying the proposal was to trash all go-oo/LO development that had occurred up until that point? If so, thanks for (sort of) clearing that up. If that's not what you're saying, why are you continuing to avoid that question?