Hi Norbert, On 01/06/2011 23:07, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: [...]
But that is _not_ the license, and with Apache License they would not have to make it available at ALL to anybody... just as is the case with their proprietary OO fork today. Hence the Enthusiastic blog campaign that flourished from IBMers in the minutes/hours following the public announcement of Oracle's intend to dump OpenOffice.org in Apache's lap. But that's fine, IBM is free to conduct their business they way they want, as long as there is no doubt in anybody's mind that that latest Oracle' move has nothing to do with 'unifying/strengthening the 'community', but everything to do with Oracle's contractual obligation to IBM and IBM desire to continue their proprietary fork.
+1
"OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony." source: http://ibm-lotus-symphony.software.informer.com/wiki/ If anybody in unconvinced why copyright assignment or Apache-like full-copyright-license-no-string-attached are evil the quote above should settle that.
Thanks for this (makes me feel less alone ;) and I wish you could be heard by some medias...
Kind regards Sophie _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
