eric.bachard wrote: > Hi, > > James McKenzie a écrit : > >> Pavel Janík wrote: > > >> Corrected URL: >> http://blog.janik.cz/archives/2005/12/#e2005-12-18T20_09_25.htm >> >> Interesting article and thank you for posting it. > > > > GPL against LGPL is too easy for GPL : what I see there is a one way > contribution in fact. > What does this have to do with Pavel's postings? I don't get the connection of a license agreement to the comments made by Pavel about Universal Binaries.
And for the comments made by Ed. He had spent about a month of his spare time trying to port OpenOffice 1.1.5 to work with gcc 4 and found that this task was taking up too much of his time and that he kept on running into various problems that would not allow the compile to complete. He started this project long before the release of the final OpenOffice 2.0 version. Since the release of OpenOffice 2.0, it is much easier to find and fix the problems with compiling/building with Apple's version of gcc 4. > > Please don't imagine something wrong. > I don't 'imagine' anything is wrong. However, I've been around for quite some time (let's put it this way, I wrote assembler code for the Z-80, I can remember when MacAfee VirusScan was shareware, and Windows2003 still has a 'bug' that viruses from the early 1990s can exploit.) I can also remember when there was NO such thing as the LGPL. The idea of Open Source is that you add your contributions to an existing project, or you start one of your own. Others add/delete/modify/fix as needed and contribute back to the entire project. You HAVE to include your sources with your releases (read through the GPL completely and you will see this statement) or make them available on a public server for anyone to download. This is what makes Open Source so powerful, but also dangerous. In any case, I see this argument as 'picking at straws' and is a minor point in getting OpenOffice ported with all functionality to the MacIntosh (be the operating system MacOSX or Mactel.) > The problem is not to share code : I'm completely for free software, > the problem is *who* is *really* working for Mac OS X port of > OpenOffice.org. > I don't know. You have a project that I cannot (or have not) been able to get at the source for as of yet. Patrick/Ed/Dan and others put their efforts on the NeoOffice.org site and this code is available for public download from the cvs server (like that at OpenOffice.org). Are you willing to put your team's efforts out for the rest of the world to look at, discuss at length and help fix/improve if necessary? If so, please let us know where the sources are at so we can look at them and suggest improvements. I know it is very early in your efforts, but at this time I have doubts that this will EVER happen (and the emphasis is there for a reason.) Keeping your project secret is not in the spirit of Open Source and makes the rest of us wonder if it even exists. The question in my mind is: Does sources exist for your project, where are they and what type of license are they going to be released under. Sun, after several years, gave up on the SSISL because it was not enforceable in both the EU and USA. And I'm definately working on a port of OpenOffice to the Mac that works TODAY. I'm not going to wait for a project that may see results in two to three YEARS. And this is without the support of SUN or any other major company. This is something to keep in mind when you start a new project. Will this project create a new and better product or is it best to help an already existing project improve to the point where your efforts are recognized. It appears that you want much glory and if you succeed, this may/may not happen. However, pointing out the failures of others does not do much to help your effort and may actually have a counterproductive effect. James --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
