On 6/18/23 15:19, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Besides that it would also have been clear from actually reading the IRC > log which incidentially also says
Good to know what the expectations for participation are. >> This is the same GPLv3 package that Red Hat just dropped support for? > > As I said in my other reply, even if it was GPLv3 it wouldn't be > relevant at all. > > LibreOffice is not GPLv3 though and never was. I paid close attention to the project's launch back in the day. Back when LibreOffice forked away Oratroll's acquisition of Sun in 2010, they used (L)GPLv3 to prevent OpenOffice from merging their changes. Then OpenOffice got unloaded on apache.org after the fact, and it all got weirdly political. Then Google bought Writely and did google docs which could edit and save a word file which scooped up most of the userbase, and LibreOffice decided it should also run in a web browser... https://lwn.net/Articles/637830/ I know they regretted their GPLv3 stance early on, and were talking about NEW code being in a different license: https://lwn.net/Articles/498898/ But last I'd heard, while Apache's version had audited to relicense LibreOffice had not yet done a full audit: https://lwn.net/Articles/927096/ *shrug* I acknowledge I'm out of date here. If you say they're not v3 anymore, good for them. Seems I'm not the only one who hadn't heard about it, though. The last couple cubicle farms I consulted at still had LibreOffice on their "not allowed" lists, but the most recent of those was 2021 so that's old news. I only spoke up on the perception you were advocating for the removal of architectures I care about. Glad to hear that's not the case. Back to lurking... Rob
