To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8808
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 3 14:47:26 +0000 2007 ------- Personally, I don't really see the difference in terms of licensing between this functional module and the extensions which can also be licensed under the LGPL. So might I ask Sun Legal, where does the problem lie ? Unless, of course, the decision is one of a particular ownership strategy that Sun management has not seen fit to divulge to the community ? As has been pointed out, there are already other forms of licensing in parts of the code integrated within OOo, under alternative permissive with certain restrictions licenses. Whilst I can understand that having all the code "under one hat" so to speak, makes life a hell of a lot easier for those who have to manage, sell, defend it, etc, we are not exactly breaking new ground (in terms of code management) with a code submission such as this, and indeed I would say again that is has been done before, and could be done again. Obviously, this is not what is wanted by the historical entity of the project. Alex And yes, I am a practising lawyer, and specialize in the field of intellectual property. Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
