---- Original Message ---- > From: Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]> > Oracle announce: > >http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm >m > > IBM is very happy to be able to continue Symphony without having to > give code back... (they seems to rejoyce at being able to do selective > GPL: i.e what is yours is mine... but what is mine is yours only for > the peice I don't care about and would like you to maintain instead): >http://www.edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/openoffice-moving-to-apache-good-news-for-the-desktop-productivity-market >t > "The new project at Apache strengthens IBM's ability to continue to > offer our own distributions of productivity tools based on the > OpenOffice code base and make our own contributions to reinforce the > overall community. " >
FYI - LGPL/GPL does not _require_ that code be contributed back to the _community_. Projects work best when that happens, but that is not a requirement. The _requirement_ is that the code be accessible to those that the project is being distributed to - e.g. end-users. In the case of IBM, a user of Symphony would have been able to ask for the code and IBM would have had to provide it per LGPL/GPL if that were the license. It does not mean that IBM would have had to contribute back to LibreOffice, OpenOffice, or anyone else. Ben _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
