2008/5/25 NoOp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 05/24/2008 03:25 AM, mike scott wrote: > > On 23 May 2008 at 14:05, NoOp wrote: > > >> > >> [snip] > >> 2. You have either to include the source code or tell the users where > >> it is (http://www.openoffice.org); and > > ... > > > > Hmm. I think the info on the OOo web page contradicts OOo's LGPL > > licence. That clearly says > > > > " 4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or > > derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form > > under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany > > it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, > > which > > must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a > > medium customarily used for software interchange. > > > > If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy > > from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the > > source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to > > distribute the source code, even though third parties are not > > compelled to copy the source along with the object code." > > > > > > In other words if I put the binary on a CD, I have to put the source > > there too. > > > > (IIRC this is different from the straight GPL, where you can satisfy > > the source requirements with an /offer/ to provide source.) > > > No clue. I reckon that you can take it up with OOo legal and/or > marketing to see what they say. I tried to bring up some questions > regarding the issue of the LGPL on the discuss list sometime back and > was pretty much booed/hissed off the thread straight away. >
Gary : boo, boo, hiss, hiss !... Henri
