On Aug 14, 2005, at 19:14, swhiser wrote:
The following I exerpt from the Clay Clairborn piece:
********************************************************
The difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the LGPL lets
vendors link proprietary code to Open Source libraries without making
their code GPL. Apparently this is what IBM has done with its
WorkPlace office suite. Granted, WorkPlace does some truly innovative
stuff for network collaboration, but anyone familiar with Open Office
will recognize OpenOffice 1.1--but without credit to Sun or
OpenOffice.org. One shortcoming of the IBM approach is that while IBM
claims its system is compliant with the OpenDocuments standard, it
really isn't, at least according to Gary Edwards.
<snip />
[
IBM is certainly not obligated to contribute back to OOo has no
legal, moral or technical obligation to do so. This is due to the
SISSL/LGPL licences. I believe also that the way they are using OOo
components and code may lend itself to making any of their work
non-applicable to the OOo code base. I'm speculating here and
talking from partial knowledge, so please keep that in mind; and I
invite Gary or others to suggest where I may have it wrong. -sh]
I actually believe IBM's non-contribution to be a consequence only of
SISSL, which I gather to have been the license they chose from the
dual-license for OpenOffice.org. If they'd chosen to create their
derivative work under LGPL, I believe they would have been compelled to
provide source just as they would have been if GPL had been in use.
S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
