On 1/12/09, Andrew Ziem <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Lars Noodén <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Andrew Ziem wrote: > >> "the fork" is under the LGPL... > > > > A fork is a fork, which they have had the freedom to fork OOo because > > OOo is under the LGPL. Just because their fork is also under the LGPL > > does not mean their is an obligation for the original to accept material > > from the fork. > > > Sure there's no obligation, but you are complaining it (the fork > exists because the original does not accept the material). > > > > Since the fork was made to include technically and legally undesirable > > components it would be a stupid move to accept tainted mods. > > > I'm not sure what you mean. As one example, what is wrong with it > with the GStreamer integration for Linux?
i dont think gstreamer was the problem but mono. > > > auditing is not an option, the onus is not on the original team to be > > chasing a fork. > > > How is that different than the already existing ~30 external modules > such as libxml2 and mozilla? Also, that assumes that Sun Microsystems > will never find a way to reconcile the dispute regarding the SCA. > > > Andrew -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español IM: [email protected]
