Re: [Marketing] www-openoffice.com are they authorised to sell at $49
Neville Daniels wrote: Dear Sir/Madam Is http://www-openoffice.com authorised to sell OpenOffice? Not authorised as such but then they don't need to be. Anyone can sell it for whatever price they wish. That's part of the license. Cheers GL -- GET LEGAL - GET OPENOFFICE.ORG http://why.openoffice.org ISO 26300 compliant Graham Lauder, OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html INGOTs Assessor Trainer (International Grades in Office Technologies) www.theingots.org.nz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] www-openoffice.com are they authorised to sell at $49
Hi, Neville Daniels wrote: Dear Sir/Madam Is http://www-openoffice.com authorised to sell OpenOffice? Funny. There are just too many smart asses out there. They surely have the right to take money for that. Morally, it's even justifyable that they have themselves paid for the 8 weeks included support that they offer. Though it's odd that at the same time they offer 8 weeks money back warranty, so one could buy it, make use of the support and then return the product? 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. André. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] www-openoffice.com are they authorised to sell at $49
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 20:42 +1000, André Wyrwa wrote: Hei, just having a thought about these kind of business approaches... Would it make sense to write a Firefox extension that acts as a phishing filter kind of thing for distributors that violate OSS licences? I'm imagining something that pops up a little note saying this site asks you to pay for something you could have for free here: . Of course this is kind of a self-contained approach, because Firefox users usually are already a bit more OSS aware and the majority of mislead users potentially use IE to surf the net, right? But not a bad idea because you only need a few new FF users to say hey this is neat, it warns you about rip offs and so they tell their friends who might then install FF because its a useful feature. Snag is if it could have legal implications if it was implied that someone's site was violating a license when it wasn't. What would be useful would be to inform anyone visiting any site selling or supporting proprietary software that there was a free alternative at ...and we recommend you take a look. Ian -- www.theINGOTS.org www.schoolforge.org.uk www.opendocumentfellowship.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Marketing] www-openoffice.com are they authorised to sell at $49
On 8/5/06, Kaj Kandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chad, great you chime in on this. However, I think if you do what you are saying should there not be an obligation to change at least the name of the product. There is nothing in the LGPL about names. As I said, trademark restrictions are another matter. I'm jsut talking about the LGPL here. If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. What does the last line say there? Third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. If www-openoffice.org didn't change the code - then they would be considered a third party. If they changed the code, and they distributed their new code under the LGPL, then they would have to distribute it. Otherwise I'd have to give my buddy a copy of the source on the CD everytime I burned them a copy of the program or I would be in violation of the LGPL (because my friend got the binary from me on CD, the source would also have to be available from me on CD, according to your same-place, same-media logic.) Your example of the FSF going after Linux distros is different, because they modified the code. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ http://www.whatisopenoffice.org/ http://www.chadwsmith.com/
