I thought there was a clause even in Open Source property, that unless it is changed sufficiently that they have to recognize during selling or re-distribution how the majority of the application is supported, or what it's based on. No? I mean... Are they scott free?
Rigel On 11/26/05, Randomthots <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Christian Einfeldtextra wrote: > > > > > > I have a question to this list: Do we like ThinkFree? or are they > schmucks > > like Luxrsty (I deliberately misspelled their name to make them not > > searchable) > > > > Negative: AFAICT, there is no mention of OpenOffice.org on their > website. In fact, the only hint that it is indeed based on OOo is in the > name of their components (Write & Calc, I actually like the name Show > better than Impress). > > Positive: They have apparently done some actual coding in the web-based > version and the Show module for PDAs. So they have some legitimate claim > to rename the package, IMO. > > Unknown: Do they refer users to these lists for support? If so, that is > a big negative. If they do their own support, good for them. > > That's the hazard with producing Open Source. This sort of thing can and > does happen. If it results in genuine innovation, good for them. > > -- > > Rod > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
