On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Oscar van Vliet wrote: > Now, I am not a lawyer, nor a programmer (though I have at one time written > assembly and I have read volumes of legal texts in my time), so please bear > with me. I'll give this one a shot: > > If you take away the egos and the principles, what exactly is the > problem with including GPL code in the OpenOffice tree? As far as I > understand the licenses, OpenOffice.org could use GPL code and publish > NeoOffice here without any problem. > > I seem to recall the problem comes when a company wants to use the GPL code > and earn money from it. Then they would have to ask Patrick and Ed for > permission, and Patrick and Ed will probably ask to be compensated for the > 3000 manhours and 4000 dollars they've poured in so far. While the other 99% > is OpenOffice code, nearly all of that has been written by paid employees, > who have therefore already been compensated.
Hi, The problem is actually a bit more complicated. OOo uses a dual-license strategy, where the code is dual-licensed SISSL/LGPL. When you commit code to the OOo CVS, you have to have signed the JCA (Joint Copyright Agreement) in which you assign copyright of the code over to Sun for use under the SISSL and LGPL licenses. The SISSL license _only_ requires that you keep binary file format compatibility with the OOo file format, it does _NOT_ require that you contribute changes back to the project. SISSL is not open-source. Examples of companies that use OOo under the SISSL license are IBM with its Workplace product, and Sun with StarOffice. Obviously Sun contributes almost all of the code back out of good will, while IBM does not. Companies can choose which license they wish to distribute their version of OOo under, and some choose SISSL because they wish to keep the source-code they have developed private. So, NeoOffice is GPL licensed. This means that the code _cannot_ be used in OpenOffice.org (which is SISSL/LGPL) unless the code in NeoOffice is re-licensed under the SISSL & LGPL licenses. Patrick and Ed are (IMHO understandably) quite reluctant to re-license the NeoOffice code, since that means that any company can take the code and reuse it _without_ _contributing_ _back_. That is the main problem here. Ed and Patrick have put so much of their own time and money into NeoOffice, that they are unwilling to let a company take their code, close-source it, and use it under the SISSL license, which would be completely possible if the code were brought back into the OpenOffice.org tree and CVS. I hope that clears up a few things. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
