LinuxMail wrote: >It does not require a lawyer to decipher the meaning it is plainly clear to anyone who reads it.
Neither the GNU GPL 2.0,nor GNU LGPL 2.1 are legally precise. With GNU GPL 3.0 and GNU LGPL 3.0, the meaning is more legally precise. In both instances, the apparent "plain meaning" is not necessarily what the legal meaning is. I'll grant that neither the GNU GPL nor LGPL obfuscate the terms and conditions, the way certain other organizations do. NoOp wrote: > have a few questions, the first being where on earth did you get this? I put it together to provide a one stop answer to questions about licensing and related issues. If people either read list archives, or the OOo FAQ on the wiki, they wouldn't keep asking the question. > 2. Deployment: Are you suggesting that anyone that wishes to use OOo have > their attorney go thru the process you've described? If you are a business entity, then you _need_ to have your attorney review _every_ licence for every piece of hardware, and software that your organization uses. And to have those licences handy when they review contracts for both software support and hardware support. a) Have you ever analysed a contract for Support Services for Microsoft Software? Or had an attorney analyse one for you? b) It isn't that the GNU LGPL is in legalese (though 3.0 comes close), but that other licences can create conditions in which you can not use OOo, or other FLOSS. > 4. Patents: cite. Also, I'd be interested in seeing prior art that is > more than a millennium old. The RSA algorithm is from a text on the QBL that was written during the Tenth Century. Amazon's "One Click Patent" is an obvious application from writing that has been dated to circa 4 000 BCE. xan jonathon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
