On 8/5/06, André Wyrwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, the one thing that concerns me here... does the LGPL not require mention of the original authors? And does it not require publishing the source? I can't find any reference to OOo on the page nor any mention of the source. But i might just be under a wrong impression concerning what the LGPL actually sais.
The original authors are mentioned in the copyright information that is actually a part of the program itself. So unless the www-openoffice.orgpeople have changed the software - it's mentioned. If they did change the software, (which, of course, they are free to do), then, according to the LGPL - they don't have to be LGPLed. In other words, much like Sun takes OpenOffice.org and turns it into StarOffice, which is not open source, anyone can take OpenOffiice.org and turn it into another program - which can be liscenced however they choose. They don't actually have to alter anything to make it a different program. They can just rebrand it. Logo and trademark considerations are a different matter. But just going off the LGPL - there's nothing stopping me from distributing OpenOffice.org Plus as a propriatary program that has nothing added but a few extra zeros in the binary. But they wouldn't have to do that. There's nothing in the LGPL saying the source code has to be offered by the distributor, merely that it is "published" - which, of course, OpenOffice.org's code *is* published. The simple fact is, OpenOffice.org itself has links to OpenOffice.org built into the software, so if I misunderstood the LGPL, and the source code *has* to be offered, then the links in the software itself cover that. If you don't know what the LGPL says, you can read it here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html Or you could read about what it means on the OpenOffice.org website. http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/license-change.html -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ http://www.whatisopenoffice.org/ http://www.chadwsmith.com/
