Hi Martin,
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:19 +0100, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
> > Also, there are some improvements possible wrt. Section 7 - eg. how
> > does updating modules in "external" projects (eg. boost under BSD) fit
> > with this clause ? is that something only Sun can do ? [ eg.
> > (hypothetically) how could Fridrich commit an updated version of
> > libwpd ? ].
>
> we're working on a revamp of the external project homepage to give
> guidelines for all these kind of questions, please stay tuned for a some
> more couple of days,
Well; it's *20* days later, and I'm still unclear what the SCA means
here. There are conflicting reports:
The licensing FAQ at:
http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html
Now has a question:
"How are extensions affected by the new agreement
and license?"
That appears to link to an answer in a different section 'sca11'. That
should be 'sca13' I believe.
sca13 - mis-spells 'including', and apparently the sense of that, when
read with the SCA falls short of what has been reported elsewhere.
I must be missing something: where are the "guidelines ... as posted by
us [Sun] on Openoffice.org" as referenced in the SCA ? I assume Sun will
follow at least the spirit of the agreement it asks people to sign.
Presumably if this was available to read, there would be less concern &
more clarity around this issue.
Thanks,
Michael.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
