Why doesn't IBM simply return changes to the code as a seperate branch in the code tree. I am concerned with the principle myself.
--- Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Randall Shimizu wrote: > > IBM: No plans to contribute to OpenOffice.org > > > (http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6039161.html?tag=nl > > ): > > Open Office > > > license(http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html > > ) > > > > This really caught me by suprise Ed. IBM used some > > Open Office code componentized it and now says > that > > they have not been able to find a good method to > > re-contribute the modified code. > > > > So is IBM saying that they are optiing out of the > GNU > > portion of the LPGL thus freeing them of the > > obligation to redistriubte the Workplace OO > > productivity editors....?? I don't think this is > agood > > way for IBM to endear themselves to the OSS > coummunity Ed... > > Well, if it is *L*GPL, IBM is not required to return > changes. > > I read the subtext as they ripped it apart so > heavily that integrating a > patch change is going to be very difficult. The > problem with making > major architectural changes is that you have to > submit the results > continuously to ensure that the patches can mesh. > > In addition, IBM has rearranged the code to be > delivered by Web client. > That's actually a useful product for which they > can probably charge > money. Until OpenOffice produces such a beast, IBM > probably has little > incentive to return code. > > However, IBM is shooting themselves in the foot. > Having to maintain a > separate but compatible codebase which does not > generate enough revenue > to support itself is always a bad choice. > > -a > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list > -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
