Hi >Suppose you are a coder, or proto-coder, and are hesitantly thinking >of contributing to OOo. You probably don't trust Sun much. But perhaps >you'll provide a simple addon, and see how it goes. Now, it turns out >that you must allow Sun to also have ownership of your work, you must >print this piece of paper saying so, and /physically/ mail it accross >the world to Calfornia. And you do this with the full knowledge that >it will be released under a license that permits propietary >derivatives, and that if Sun likes your work, they can include it into >StarOffice but leave OOo out of it.
> >That's a barrier. > >I haven't signed the JCA, I'm not confortable with it. Other people >won't be either. I think it's fair to say that I trust Sun more than >the avarage FOSS coder. If the JCA makes me unconfortable, it will >also make other people unconfortable. Besides yourself (and you are not a developer), do you have any evidence that developers have refused to commit code to OOo because of the JCA? > >I think that at least for add-ons, the JCA could be removed. OOo >already ships with third-party products that Sun doesn't own the >copyright to (e.g. Python). The same thing could be done for add-ons. I won't disagree here, as I've argued versions of this. More specifically, I've argued for the establishment of repositories of add ons and plug ins that would enhance OOo. Of course, I'm not a developer so to me it's easy to say, let's have this. I suspect it's actually much more difficult. , > >Cheers, Daniel. Best, louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
