Op 7-6-2011 22:37, William A. Rowe Jr. schreef:
On 6/7/2011 3:17 PM, Simon Brouwer wrote:
The OpenOffice.org installation packages contain code from a considerable
number of
"external" libraries (i.e. third party ones that are developed in their own
projects, not
copyright Oracle and have mostly LGPL license). So this would not be allowed
for releases
by the podling?
Binaries under category A or B license would be permitted, compiled from
releases under their original project. We like to avoid forks (and don't
fork category B licenses such as MPL). Category X licensed components
cannot be shipped by the ASF, which includes LGPL.
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
I entirely expect that LO today could not be shipped by the ASF. There
is, as we have hinted, room to take LO further than OOo can be allowed,
given our licensing guidelines. There is also the concept of optional
dependencies, where the ASF software is capable of interfacing to some
category x component, but the ASF does not complete that connection, and
allows the packager/distributor to elect to do so. Support in httpd
for mysql, oracle db, freetds, postgresql, gdbm and berkely db all fall
into this category (and the package supports sqlite and sdbm to name
two examples of this optional functionality implemented in AL compatible
licensing).
Then I expect that, even if a working OOo product could be shipped by
the ASF in the near future under these conditions, it will be a big step
back from the OOo/LO available today because many functions will be
missing.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer.
| http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
