Ah Charles !
The sound of your typing fills me with joy :-)
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 18:51 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Sure - so (it seems to me) rather hard for anyone except Sun to
> > prosecute an LGPL violation here -
>
> Indeed, they're the copyright holder of the entirety of the code.
That has nothing to do with it. If an individual contributed his code
for the "Frobnicate" feature, and noticed Butler shipping with it, in
violation of the GPL he could address that violation in the courts (as I
understand it). Apparently SCO created a huge scene around a few lines
of allegedly copied code (that they didn't own AFAICS, IANAL etc.).
> Of course, the main difference here is that it's up to Sun, not to
> Novell to call the shots.
Quite :-) if I worked for Sun, I'm sure it would seem obvious that I
had the moral right to proprietarily license all other people's code /
translations / documentation etc. contributed to OO.o in perpetuity. I
would also be certain that that right would always be used wisely, never
abused, never used to hurt OpenOffice, or other contributors. Since I
don't work for Sun I'm far less certain.
> And despite the existence of legal agreements between Sun and MS, at
> least we're not being infected as a result of the active and lavish
> collaboration of your company with Redmond.
Personally, I think you can get infected just reading my E-mail, be
warned ! ;-) and really, it might be better for you not to.
It's also critical to understand that there are no legal agreements
whatsoever between Sun and MS, nor any active collaboration on any topic
- so that's all right: the world is still high-contrast black & white.
Sun white, Novell Black :-)
> In short, criticzing the JCA may be valid, but it's particularly
> unappropriate - or perhaps just pathetic- coming from you.
Play the man, not the ball - that's my advice :-) it's much easier &
more fun, and avoids the need for critical thought.
> But don't you think Sun developers on this list would know if their
> company was in business with Butler?
No idea if Sun developers generally know how the code is licensed,
under what terms & to whom.
I could continue addressing other such nonsense as:
> OpenSuse is directly copyrighted to Novell.
Cool, OO.o is included in OpenSUSE so we own the copyright ! [ or
not ] :-)
> just like many Gnome projects and the Gnome desktop as a whole also
> has an copyright umbrella (under the Gnome Foundation).
I've no idea what method you use to generate such a confusion of
issues, are you sure it's legal ? :-)
ATB,
Michael.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
