Hi Brian,
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 06:31 -0800, BrianS wrote:
> Yes, MPL would work better for me. I thought that Oracle have placed all of
> the OO source under AL2.
Well - that is ongoing :-)
> But the LO fork was done before that. Is there an announcement that I can
> read that describes this plan to place all of LO under MPL/LGPL3+? It's
> rather complicated (to me anyway).
No announcement that I know of; but the intention has been to be a weak
copy-left project from the beginning; this is why we as for all
contributions under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license. OO.o had a
non-copy-left license (SISSL) for much of it's early life and had a
uniformly terrible experience of extracting code from some large
users :-)
> Some set of or even a single static library that I could link to would what
> I need. If you're planning on releasing the productivity suite as a set of
> separate apps then you probably need to develop this anyway. Supporting the
> latest Apple toolchain would also be helpful.
Yep; so clearly we're trying to head in the direction of a single large
library even for the desktop case, for all manner of efficiency reasons.
We should build with a recent LLVM too, though having a tinderbox setup
to keep that working would be much appreciated if you have cycles (the
tools for that live here:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/contrib/buildbot/
So - all in all, it is some work - but presuambly that's expected :-)
and there are others working away at the same sorts of problems.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
