On 07/20/2007 11:34 PM, jonathon wrote: > Rentia Sadie wrote: > >> We're a NPO (non profitable organisation), and are interested in moving away >> from Microsoft Office. Is the programme still free, or would there be a >> license fee of sorts. > > 1: Legal Issues > > OOo is distributed under the GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC > LICENSE Version 2.1, February 1999. > > As such, you can: > * Install it on as many computers as you desire; > * Give away as many copies as you like; > * Sell as many copies as you like, for whatever price you > can obtain for them; > * Port it to any platform you want to run it on; > * Add any functionality that you may want, or need; > * Remove any functionality that you neither want, nor need; > Provided that the source code to the product is distributed > with the product. > > 2: Deployment > > Before deployment have your attorney: > * Go through all of the licences for all of the software you > currently use; > * Go through all computer service contracts you currently have; > to determine whether or not your current licences / contracts: > * Permit you to deploy programs you may currently be using; > * Permit you to deploy FLOSS; > > Some software EULAs (End User Licence Agreements) have > clauses which prohibit them from being run in conjunction > with FLOSS. > > Some computer maintenance contracts have clauses which > prohibit the installation of any software that is not > specifically listed in the contract; > > 3: Resources > > The following URLs provide additional information: > * http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html > * http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > > 4: Patents > > OOo is deliberately excluded from all patent protection > agreements that Microsoft has made with other companies. As > such, Microsoft has the option of pursuing legal action to > enforce its patents. It costs roughly US$1,000,000 for a > successful defence of a patent. The primary part of the > defence will be to overturn the patent that allegedly was > violated. A second part of that defence will be to prove > that the USPTO failed to adhere to US Statute law in issuing > the patent. > > Every software patent ever issued has been based upon prior > art. It is not unusual for that prior art to be more than a > millennium old. It is not unusual for the USPTO to issue > patents for things for which they have previously issued > patents. It is not unusual for the USPTO to issue patents on > things that are blatantly obvious to anybody who can read. > it is not unusual for the USPTO to issue patents that they > know will be revoked if challenged. It is not unusual for > the USPTO to issue patents for non-inventions. > > xan > > jonathon
You keep posting this over and over when someone asks about licensing. I have a few questions, the first being where on earth did you get this? 2. Deployment: Are you suggesting that anyone that wishes to use OOo have their attorney go thru the process you've described? 4. Patents: cite. Also, I'd be interested in seeing prior art that is more than a millennium old. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
