Re: users Digest 28 Nov 2012 19:50:51 -0000 Issue 232

[Rod Lockwood <ro...@provide.net>]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:50:51 -0500,  
<us...@openoffice.apache.org> wrote:

> Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed squarely
> where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have
> automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo, chosen to
> assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and running  
> and
> which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to assign  
> all
> the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would perpetuate the
> fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison....
> Henri

Another way to end the forking would be for the Document Foundation to  
swallow their pride and join Apache. Why insist on playing Oracle’s game?  
Why insist that there needs to be a fork when you could simply join Apache  
and make OpenOffice better? Simply because you feel slighted or wanted to  
be the heroes?

-- 
Sincerely,
Rod Lockwood

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: users Digest 28 Nov 2012 19:50:51 -0000 Issue 232

["Girvin R. Herr" <gi...@sbcglobal.net>]

There is also another fork - StarOffice, the predecessor of OpenOffice. 
http://staroffice.com/
Way back before OpenOffice, Sun purchased StarOffice from Star Division 
and then made it open source as OpenOffice. The last I heard, Sun 
Microsystems was still developing StarOffice as their income product, 
where they sold it and bundled support in with it. Now I do not see any 
connection between StarOffice and Oracle. Did Oracle get StarOffice when 
they bought Sun or did Sun or Oracle spin it off? The StarOffice website 
above is dated 2011, so it may be dead or dying. Clicking on News, 
vectors to Apache OpenOffice!
Just curious.
Girvin Herr

Rod Lockwood wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:50:51 -0500, 
> <us...@openoffice.apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed squarely
>> where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have
>> automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo, 
>> chosen to
>> assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and 
>> running and
>> which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to 
>> assign all
>> the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would perpetuate 
>> the
>> fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison....
>> Henri
>
> Another way to end the forking would be for the Document Foundation to 
> swallow their pride and join Apache. Why insist on playing Oracle’s 
> game? Why insist that there needs to be a fork when you could simply 
> join Apache and make OpenOffice better? Simply because you feel 
> slighted or wanted to be the heroes?
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.apache.org