To Alexandro Colorado: As this message states, the code itself will be
different and incompatible and that is what I based my statement on! Can
you show me how an incompatibility of code can be just a change of
license and not a stumbling block?
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
File format or data is not a code generation issue. You are confusing
code with content and compatibility.
On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:55:54 -0600, John Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
To Nicu: How many users do you think they will lose when they switch?
People who have files in OOo format that they have made for quite
some time, will NOT be able to use the new format, it seems! Are they
going to allow for that with a conversion of some sort? :-(
Nicu Buculei wrote:
jonathon wrote:
All:
a) Is OOo going to switch to LGPL 3.0, or will stay with
LGPL 2.1?
This is ultimately Sun's decision, thy can make it grace to the JCA.
The community *may* have a word and influence this decision (either
way, to stay or switch but I am afraid this will be a politic
decision in the end, made by the top management)
b) What will happen to code that is submitted using the LGPL
3.0 licence?
3.0 is incompatible with 2.1, so obviously, code under this license
can't be accepted.
I guess contributing a lot of valuable new code under 3.0 can be a
good way to influence a switch decision from Sun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
