Hi, On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 11:55:18AM +1000, Douglas Ray wrote: > Sylvain, ta for the prompt response, and the caveat on Java; comments > below. > > Sylvain Beucler wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:50:14PM +1000, Douglas Ray wrote: >> >>> Has GNU/savannah made a ruling on whether OpenOffice 2.x is free >>> software, or non-free, for the purpose of savannah candidate-project >>> dependencies? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Douglas Ray >>> >> >> Hmm, well I'd say OOo is free software. We expect, however, that if >> you use Java-dependent features, it has to work with a free software >> java suite, such as GCJ+Classpath or IcedTea. >> >> The current Debian packages are in the 'free' section, for that matter: >> http://packages.debian.org/openoffice.org >> >> What makes you think we may consider it non-free? >> > > 1) Gary Edwards' ODF article on linuxworld.com.au. > > I don't believe his assessment impinges on 'free software' definitions (but > you are the experts, there). I do believe it indicates some manipulation > of the 'open source' community. > > (As Gary is a founding member of the initial OASIS technical committee, his > comments on ODF and OOo are significant. And all the more so, where he > draws on the plenary summary of the EU 21 government "Workshop on Open > Document Exchange Formats"... ec.europa.eu, "ODEF" + "Vriendt" will find > the agenda, and the conclusions.) > > 2) I'm planning a plug-in that could take a lot of my energy. I don't > want to start off plugging into the wrong project - so I've asked here, > first. If I go with OOo, I want to keep some distance from their current > management structure (may be off-topic, in this forum, but I'd be happy to > discuss).
When we look at dependencies, we only look at their license. We cannot judge a project's various kinds of management. So I cannot give any useful advice here. Cheers, -- Sylvain
