Andrew Ziem 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?

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.


OOo always has allowed the usage of external third party code, so that OOo code can reuse third party code. Just the code within OOo needs to be covered under SCA so that we continue to stay with a common copyright for all OOo code.

that said, the usage of the libgstreamer library is not other than the usage of libxml2 or mozilla. The Office integration code, as for any other integration of third party code, should be coved by SCA.

It was the decision of Novell not to contribute their changes, which they have done within the existing Office code for the integration of the gstreamer, under the joint copyright (and as they have already done for many other code).

At least to my knowledge there are no special legal concerns (beside the SCA) that blocks an integration of that code. And if they were such concerns, I'm sure there would be a workaround to include such code with "Exempted Contributions Guidelines' for 'Unbundled Extensions" (see http://external.openoffice.org) if there were such problems.

Martin


Andrew

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Reply via email to