On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Rex Djere wrote: > Please sue this people and put them out of business.
There may not be a legal theory under which OOo can successfully sue those vendors. This does not preclude a legal theory under which an injured party can successfully sue those, or any other vendors. A) Licenses; 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. b) Gratis and Non-Gratis Free can mean one of two things: * Libre: * Gratis; 1: Libre The Free Software Foundation has defined "Libre Software" as that which meets the Four Freedoms. * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Debian-Legal, to determine whether or not software meets _The Debian Free Software Guidelines_, has devised the following tests: * "The Desert Island Test". Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer with an Internet connection that can't upload. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island. * "The Dissident Test". Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the identity of the modifier, or directly reveal the modifications themselves, or even possession of the program, to the government. Any requirement for sending source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary ( in fact, any forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a copy of the binary ) would put the dissident in danger. For Debian to consider software Free it must not require any such excess distribution. * "The Tentacles of Evil Test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms. Some people who work with content have added the following test: * DRM Dave's Hardware Platform: (DRM: Digital Management Rights) Can Bob & Alice upload non-DRM content? Can Bob & Alice download non-DRM content? Can Bob & Alice download DRM content? Can Bob & Alice upload third party DRM content? Can Bob & Alice download third party non-DRM content? Can Bob & Alice play first party non-DRM content? Can Bob & Alice play third party non-DRM content? Can Bob & Alice play third party DRM content? If all of those conditions are met, then it is Libre. 2: Gratis Whilst software that is Libre can be distributed Gratis, there is no requirement to do so. A major issue with FLOSS is the creation of a viable revenue stream through product sales. The person you sell FLOSS to, can turn around and burn a million CDs, either selling them for whatever price they so desire, or just giving them away. ( FLOSS: Free Libre Open Source Software) OOo is distributed under the GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2.1, February 1999. As such, it meets the requirement of Libre. You can download OOo from http://download.openoffice.org/index.html. * There are vendors who will charge for downloading the program from their website; * There are vendors who will charge for the CD or DVD; * There are vendors who will charge a per seat license fee; How much you pay has no bearing on the amount, or type of support you receive. I've seen CD vendors charge $0.99 and provide one hour telephone support. I've seen CD vendors charge $500.00 and provide no support at all. TANSTAAFL: There is the implication with FLOSS that one will support the community. The Debian Social Contract is the best known of the formally defined "contracts". (TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch) 3: Resources The following URLs provide additional information: * http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html * http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Your message was sent to a public mailing list. Answers are provided by volunteers. Please send any responses you might have to the list. xan jonathon -- OOo can not correct for incompetence in creating documents from MSO. Furthermore,OOo can not compensate for the defective and flawed security measures used by Microsoft. As such, before using this product for exams that require faulty and defective software, ensure that you will not be unjustly penalized for the incompetence of the organization that requires the use of software that is known to be flawed, defective, bug-ridden, and fails to meet ISO file format standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
