Mark Harrison wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "swhiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Marketing] article: "LinuxWorld 2005 Thursday"
Food for thought:
if the OOo code base were GPL'd, then IBM's work would be
available to everybody
Isn't it the case that
if the OOo code base HAD BEEN EXCLUSIVE GPLd, then ....
If OOo were released under GPL _now_, it wouldn't mean that IBM had to
release, because they already have the product under a different (presumably
non-revokable) licence. They would only have to release if they took stuff
from a new, GPL-only, codebase.
... Actually, re-reading, I think that's what you meant :-) but the way it
was written I parsed as "if we released under OOo NOW, then IBM would have
to release....", which AIUI, is not the case.
M.
Mark-
You hit on an important question: the "retro-activity or grandfather"
question. I believe future work of IBM's off the future GPL-only code
would need to be shared. There would be a specific set of code -- a
specific version and forward -- which would be GPL. If an IBM benefits
from a private extension they would continue to do so off the old base
under the old licenses, but would be giving up a lot. Fair play all round.
-Sam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
