From: Anselm Lingnau > This is getting a bit ridiculous. I totally agree!
> This is a copyrighted document. > Sun does not get to tweak it according to their preferences. BS! Sun can do what the hell they want with it. If Sun wants to omit a term or grant an exception, they sure the hell can. ;-) It's Sun's license on OOo. They don't have to follow the LGPL to the letter if they don't want to. They can modify as they see fit. Other projects do that all-the-time. ;-) > Again, *if* Sun really need a patent license from Microsoft > in order to distribute OO.o, And since _when_ has Novell _stated_ this? When? When? When? That's what _others_ are saying! You can read all you want into Novell-MS. But any "evil-doer speculation" you slap on to Novell _also_ applies _directly_ to Sun. And that's before we even tackle indirectly to HP, IBM, etc... applying the principles of "father McCarthy." > they don't get to distribute it under the LGPL. And under the same logic - everything from the Linux kernel to Qt to countless other GPL/LGPL projects - have the same issues. The fact of the matter is that _no_one_ protects *YOU* from possible IP infringement. They are "tolerated" because companies aren't purposely sacking these projects with IP. And that includes the very likely case that OpenXML support is standard in OpenOffice.org, because Microsoft (with counsel from Red Hat) has declared them free from public royalties. So if Red Hat includes the support, I'd say that's a good sign. Although Novell and Sun have licenses that do from Microsoft if you buy from them. So if it means that much to you, sign an agreement with them. HP and IBM also have similar deals too, so they are secondary options. You can keep trying to differentiate this issue as a "Novell created problem," but years of dealing with this in Fortune 100 IT departments (among countless other peers who have the same) tells me otherwise. > Read section 11 of the LGPL, Apparently you haven't heard a word I said. I know Sections 7 and 11, respectively, inside and out. But the FSF can do _nothing_ about the _hundreds_ of projects - _including_ the Linux kernel - where not all IP has been granted. Again, even your beloved IBM has "thumbed their nose" at the FSF there too. > Within the vast number of Microsoft patents covered > by the Sun-MS cross-license there may or > may not be a patent that could be construed to apply to OO.o, THANK YOU FOR AGREEING WITH ME! So, again, _what_ does this have _anything_ to do with Novell? > but so far Microsoft has not got around to pointing out > to us that that patent exists. Huh? Where you been?! The OpenXML is the _first_ time Microsoft has publicly declared their IP as usable without royalty, explicitly allowing even GPL usage. No other, existing Microsoft IP - incuding countless IP in existing filters (possibly OOo core itself, although StarOffice pre-dates MS Office, long story), has been publicly declare such. So the fact of the matter is that OpenXML is probably the "safest," if there is such a thing legally, MS format to support in OpenOffice.org. Especially if you are rebuilding/redistributing OOo. ;-) How can you continue to deny this. If there is one, single, "safe" MS format from an IP standpoint, it's OpenXML _more_ than any other. So what logic are you using here? > Once they do, Sun's right to distribute OO.o under > the LGPL goes straight out the window, Sun's right to distribute OOo is _absolute_, _period_! Sun does _not_ need a "license" from the FSF on anything. The most the FSF can do is "point out" what doesn't comply - as they have done on everything, from the kernel to Qt. So, again (and damn am I a broken record or something), WTF does this have to do with Novell? > They can still distribute OO.o under another license > -- they own the copyright -- They can call it LGPL, whether it has explicit or implicit exceptions or not. Did you miss the debate of GPL v2 versus GPL v3 or something? Because there are _hundreds_ of GPL v2 projects that already do this - _including_ the Linux kernel. Furthermore, you can dynamically link and bundle what you want with LGPL. At any time Sun can remove import/export filters, make them more modulare in the packaging (not jus build) process, etc... > This is not an optimal situation in any sense, > but it's the one we appear to be stuck with for the time being. So, why are we blasting Novell for doing what *WE*, the community, already do and accept? Let alone why are we blasting Novell when this is a 0% Novell, 100% Sun issue? > In any case, as I said I happen to believe that it is better > to say »come out and fight if you have an issue« > than to pay Danegeld the way Novell did. And HP and IBM and Sun and just about everybody but Red Hat. So why is Novell now different? Especially - and to steal your tactic - "I don't see Novell sacking the Linux kernel with its IP like IBM does!" Again, don't join the community cluster-jerk that implements McCarthyism based on PR. If I wanted that, I'd buy an Apple. And where is Novell in all this again? -- Sent from my Treo _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
