On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Alexandro Colorado<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Per Eriksson<[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Alexandro Colorado skrev: >>> >>> Usually when there are issues with multiple violations the biggest of >>> the violation is for what a company is taken to court. I think in this >>> case is the LGPL violation. >>> > > Yes but we have a share of the blame for doing a loussy job for > enforcing trademark. Also I don't think Sun should hold that trademark > since the oracle risk. And this can go on taking us back with the lack > of an independent unit of governance (not CC) like a foundation that > holds the copyright. But we can go on and on on that route. > > > -- > Alexandro Colorado > OpenOffice.org Español > IM: [email protected] >
I have received replies from the developer shop that did the modifications. And they have been cooperative with the demands and indicated the mistake that Telefonica provided a "standard software license term" and claiming they will remove the these for one that is open enough. Are they pulling a Google Chrome on us??? -- Alexandro Colorado OpenOffice.org Español IM: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
