Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's. Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/26/2011 08:52 PM, Jim wrote:
Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's. Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
It has been in the Rawhide repo for several weeks already. Won't be released for Fedora 14
While we´re at it, what kind of democratic process is in place so we Fedora users can vote on if we like to keep OpenOffice.org as an option, in addition to "Libre"?.
FC
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:50:12 -0300, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/26/2011 08:52 PM, Jim wrote:
Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's. Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
It has been in the Rawhide repo for several weeks already. Won't be released for Fedora 14
While we´re at it, what kind of democratic process is in place so we Fedora users can vote on if we like to keep OpenOffice.org as an option, in addition to "Libre"?.
Things don't work like that. Normally you'd volunteer to maintain the openoffice.org package in Fedora. However that package is so large that there might special consideration. But until someone decides that it is worth their time to do the work maintaining openoffice.org it isn't going to happen.
There is also a trademark issue with openoffice.org that may limit which media it would end up on. probably it wouldn't be in any of the official media due to this and size.
On 01/26/2011 09:20 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 01/26/2011 08:52 PM, Jim wrote:
Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's. Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
It has been in the Rawhide repo for several weeks already. Won't be released for Fedora 14
While we´re at it, what kind of democratic process is in place so we Fedora users can vote on if we like to keep OpenOffice.org as an option, in addition to "Libre"?.
Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to maintain them. No because of any voting.
Rahul
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to maintain them. No because of any voting.
So if someone from Oracle choose to build and maintain it for Fedora and cleared any trademark issues, it would be okay?.
Isn´t "Firefox" also trademaked by Mozilla Inc.? Am I missing something?
FC
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 16:14:22 -0300, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to maintain them. No because of any voting.
So if someone from Oracle choose to build and maintain it for Fedora and cleared any trademark issues, it would be okay?.
Isn´t "Firefox" also trademaked by Mozilla Inc.? Am I missing something?
Oracle doesn't own the trademark to openoffice in Brazil. So we are unlikely to prefer openoffice to libreoffice on any of the official media and we aren't going to put both on the same media given their size. (That is why we had a special broffice spin through F14.)
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues. Size may be an issue because these packages are so large (are almost the same thing). I doubt that would block it, but it might be a consideration.
On 01/27/2011 12:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to maintain them. No because of any voting.
So if someone from Oracle choose to build and maintain it for Fedora and cleared any trademark issues, it would be okay?.
It doesn't require a person from Oracle. *Anyone* interested enough to volunteer can do it.
Isn´t "Firefox" also trademaked by Mozilla Inc.? Am I missing something?
I didn't say anything about trademarks but anyone volunteering to package any software has to take into consideration the trademark guidelines of the software in question. For Firefox, if you patch it without upstream signing off on the patches, you will have to rename the software. I don't think there are any problems with Openoffice.org trademark for the purposes of packaging it in Fedora.
Rahul
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code. And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
FC
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
Sine the USPTO basically gives patents on about anything, it´s a mine field. Basically you don´t know if something infringes on someone else´s patent until you get sued.
Novell owns patents as well http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/211366/microsoft_purchasing_88...
So is Fedora dropping all Novell originated code?
FC
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 16:43:08 -0300, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code. And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
It did block including at least one feature that is normally available when getting the prebuilt images. If you want details that information should be documented in the src rpm. The same features would need to be blocked in new builds unless something changes with respect to the patents.
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code. And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
Openoffice.org package in Fedora had a few features removed due to such issues. Any new maintainer has to take into consideration the same problems as well.
Rahul
On 01/27/2011 01:15 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
Sine the USPTO basically gives patents on about anything, it´s a mine field. Basically you don´t know if something infringes on someone else´s patent until you get sued.
Sometimes but not always.
Novell owns patents as well http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/211366/microsoft_purchasing_88...
So is Fedora dropping all Novell originated code?
One has to show that the particular patents in question are being infringed by code included within Fedora.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Software_Patents
Rahul
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 03:14:12 pm Rahul Sundaram did opine:
On 01/27/2011 12:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to maintain them. No because of any voting.
So if someone from Oracle choose to build and maintain it for Fedora and cleared any trademark issues, it would be okay?.
It doesn't require a person from Oracle. *Anyone* interested enough to volunteer can do it.
Isn´t "Firefox" also trademaked by Mozilla Inc.? Am I missing something?
I didn't say anything about trademarks but anyone volunteering to package any software has to take into consideration the trademark guidelines of the software in question. For Firefox, if you patch it without upstream signing off on the patches, you will have to rename the software. I don't think there are any problems with Openoffice.org trademark for the purposes of packaging it in Fedora.
Rahul
What about LibreOffice?
IMO it should be one or the other, and given the politics involved, I personally would prefer that LibreOffice gets the nod by most of the distro's that do not somehow, have a dog in this fight.
Interestingly, I note that a day after LO announces a final 3.3, so does OOo. To me that brings up a question that is OT for this list, but if you let your imagination out to play without a chaperon, you all will ask it too.
On 01/27/2011 01:50 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
What about LibreOffice?
IMO it should be one or the other, and given the politics involved, I personally would prefer that LibreOffice gets the nod by most of the distro's that do not somehow, have a dog in this fight.
As indicated already, LibreOffice has replaced Openoffice.org in Rawhide and will be in Fedora 15.
Interestingly, I note that a day after LO announces a final 3.3, so does OOo. To me that brings up a question that is OT for this list, but if you let your imagination out to play without a chaperon, you all will ask it too.
If you have a question, just ask it directly.
Rahul
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 04:23:40 pm Rahul Sundaram did opine:
On 01/27/2011 01:50 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
What about LibreOffice?
IMO it should be one or the other, and given the politics involved, I personally would prefer that LibreOffice gets the nod by most of the distro's that do not somehow, have a dog in this fight.
As indicated already, LibreOffice has replaced Openoffice.org in Rawhide and will be in Fedora 15.
Interestingly, I note that a day after LO announces a final 3.3, so does OOo. To me that brings up a question that is OT for this list, but if you let your imagination out to play without a chaperon, you all will ask it too.
If you have a question, just ask it directly.
Rahul
Well, since there are many more folks working in LO than on OOo, I'm wondering if the code is now flowing the other way? Possibly w/o their (LO's) knowledge.
On a side note, I already had it (the -rc2) installed here, but when I unpacked the new tarball, I find its internal directory is an -rc4, although everything I have test ran claims to be a 3.3.0, no appendages. And the kde menu's did not require updating, a pleasant surprise.
Now OT:
I'm in WV, USA, where this current snow storm is laying it down pretty good and generally screwing things up, roads all shut down with wayward vehicles laying about, and the lights just started blinking. Hopefully the weight of this snow will not pull down any power lines, but it would not be the first time. Some of us have generators we can cobble in to run the essentials.
2 of the neighbors have snowplows mounted on their biggest ATV's, and are now out clearing the roads and driveways up and down our street. Both of my vehicles are of course 4WD, almost a requirement to call yourself a West Virginian in these parts. We call a 99 GMC pickup a West Virginia Cadillac. ;) Generally, we are a pretty self-sufficient people.
On 01/27/2011 03:22 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
Well, since there are many more folks working in LO than on OOo, I'm wondering if the code is now flowing the other way? Possibly w/o their (LO's) knowledge.
That isn't a likely scenarios for several different reasons. One of the primary catalysts for the fork is that Oracle insists on contributors signing a copyright license agreement that grants rights to Oracle to sell a proprietary version of Openoffice.org. They wouldn't want to use code from LibreOffice. As both codebases are visible, it is not possible that LibreOffice developers would be unaware if there was a flow in the other direction. Also, Openoffice.org probably has a higher count of full time developers. Libreoffice however has the strategic advantage because LibreOffice can continue to inherit code from Openoffice but not the other way around because of Oracle's policies.
Rahul
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@gmail.com wrote:
Well, since there are many more folks working in LO than on OOo, I'm wondering if the code is now flowing the other way? Possibly w/o their (LO's) knowledge.
I don´t think this is accurate. Two thirds of the former Sun developers continue working at Oracle, on OpenOffice.org. This is part of the "exodus towards LibreOffice" myth, that, given quoted figures, included only ~30 people. But it serves well the agenda of those wanting to villify Oracle.
A good PR move to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, though.
I have already explained in this list why I personally don´t want to have anything to do with Novell´s Go-OO and its latest new incarnation, LibreOffice. (Because, for those that don´t remember, let me remind you that the first "fork" was Novell´s Go-OO).
It was clear at some point that Sun wasn´t interested in promoting OO-XML, and that´s why Novell created Go-OO.
I also suspect Novell was likely one of the forces behind the scenes brewing dissent and the fork in OO.o... basically to steal the project´s steering from Oracle, all in the name of "community" and "freedom", of course. As if Novell or RedHat were the Salvation Army and only Oracle is a for-profit corporation.
I don´t care if I´m the only one, but that´s what I think.
Just my $0.02 FC PS: Sun created a copyrighted version, StarOffice, for years, and I don´t remember anybody running around like chickens without heads.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Libreoffice however has the strategic advantage because LibreOffice can continue to inherit code from Openoffice but not the other way around because of Oracle's policies.
Rahul
So basically LibreOffice will be using big bad Oracle´s work without credit while posing as freedom fighters?.
FC
On 01/27/2011 03:55 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Libreoffice however has the strategic advantage because LibreOffice can continue to inherit code from Openoffice but not the other way around because of Oracle's policies.
Rahul
So basically LibreOffice will be using big bad Oracle´s work without credit while posing as freedom fighters?.
Far from it. LibreOffice release announcements clearly mark the features inherited from Openoffice.org and the features that they have added.
Rahul
On 01/27/2011 03:53 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
I don´t think this is accurate. Two thirds of the former Sun developers continue working at Oracle, on OpenOffice.org. This is part of the "exodus towards LibreOffice" myth, that, given quoted figures, included only ~30 people. But it serves well the agenda of those wanting to villify Oracle.
The quoted figured are not 30. It is more than 100.
PS: Sun created a copyrighted version, StarOffice, for years, and I don´t remember anybody running around like chickens without heads.
Everything that is not under public domain is copyrighted including pretty much all the open source software but open source licenses give end users more liberal rights. You probably mean proprietary version there.
Rahul
On 01/26/2011 05:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 01/27/2011 03:53 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
I don´t think this is accurate. Two thirds of the former Sun developers continue working at Oracle, on OpenOffice.org. This is part of the "exodus towards LibreOffice" myth, that, given quoted figures, included only ~30 people. But it serves well the agenda of those wanting to villify Oracle.
The quoted figured are not 30. It is more than 100.
PS: Sun created a copyrighted version, StarOffice, for years, and I don´t remember anybody running around like chickens without heads.
Everything that is not under public domain is copyrighted including pretty much all the open source software but open source licenses give end users more liberal rights. You probably mean proprietary version there.
Rahul
If Libreoffice is in the rawhide repo, what is the name of rpm, I did a search on libreoffice with no results.
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code. And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
Openoffice.org package in Fedora had a few features removed due to such issues. Any new maintainer has to take into consideration the same problems as well.
Not that it really matters, but just, theoretically speaking, if an Oracle developer took over openoffice.org, and pushed out a package with those features reenabled, that would be a pretty good argument that all of that stuff's patents are now latched.
On 01/27/2011 04:49 AM, Jim wrote:
If Libreoffice is in the rawhide repo, what is the name of rpm, I did a search on libreoffice with no results.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11024
Rahul
Fernando Cassia writes:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Libreoffice however has the strategic advantage because LibreOffice can continue to inherit code from Openoffice but not the other way around because of Oracle's policies.
Rahul
So basically LibreOffice will be using big bad Oracle´s work without credit while posing as freedom fighters?.
Generally, the GPL does not mandate giving anyone credit, in some particular form or fashion.
On 01/27/2011 04:57 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code. And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
Openoffice.org package in Fedora had a few features removed due to such issues. Any new maintainer has to take into consideration the same problems as well.
Not that it really matters, but just, theoretically speaking, if an Oracle developer took over openoffice.org, and pushed out a package with those features reenabled, that would be a pretty good argument that all of that stuff's patents are now latched.
Depends. I will be careful about making simplistic conclusions. Microsoft and Sun had a patent license agreement several years back and Oracle would have one now as part of their acquisition. Oracle is also one of the Microsoft partners for the recently formed CPTN patent holding entity used as a front to buy over 800 patents from Novell so they might as well as have independent cross licensing agreements. Typically each organization has to evaluate patent risks for themselves.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 04:57 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code. And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
Openoffice.org package in Fedora had a few features removed due to such issues. Any new maintainer has to take into consideration the same problems as well.
Not that it really matters, but just, theoretically speaking, if an Oracle developer took over openoffice.org, and pushed out a package with those features reenabled, that would be a pretty good argument that all of that stuff's patents are now latched.
Depends. I will be careful about making simplistic conclusions. Microsoft and Sun had a patent license agreement several years back and Oracle would have one now as part of their acquisition. Oracle is also one of the Microsoft partners for the recently formed CPTN patent holding entity used as a front to buy over 800 patents from Novell so they might as well as have independent cross licensing agreements. Typically each organization has to evaluate patent risks for themselves.
All of that may very well be true, but isn't really a factor if an Oracle representative submits a package that says "this package contains GPLed code".
On 01/26/2011 06:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 01/27/2011 04:49 AM, Jim wrote:
If Libreoffice is in the rawhide repo, what is the name of rpm, I did a search on libreoffice with no results.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11024
Rahul
How do you install libreoffice ?
these builds are they rpm's ?
On 01/27/2011 05:25 AM, Jim wrote:
On 01/26/2011 06:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 01/27/2011 04:49 AM, Jim wrote:
If Libreoffice is in the rawhide repo, what is the name of rpm, I did a search on libreoffice with no results.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11024
Rahul
How do you install libreoffice ?
these builds are they rpm's ?
All builds in Fedora are RPM packages. It is in the development repository and I wouldn't recommend installing it unless you are using Rawhide. If you want to use it in a previous version of Fedora, Libreoffice site has some packages and you may have to remove Openoffice.org RPM packages from Fedora first.
Rahul
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 07:01:26 pm Rahul Sundaram did opine:
On 01/27/2011 04:57 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to
wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code. And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
Openoffice.org package in Fedora had a few features removed due to such issues. Any new maintainer has to take into consideration the same problems as well.
Not that it really matters, but just, theoretically speaking, if an Oracle developer took over openoffice.org, and pushed out a package with those features reenabled, that would be a pretty good argument that all of that stuff's patents are now latched.
Depends. I will be careful about making simplistic conclusions. Microsoft and Sun had a patent license agreement several years back and Oracle would have one now as part of their acquisition. Oracle is also one of the Microsoft partners for the recently formed CPTN patent holding entity used as a front to buy over 800 patents from Novell so they might as well as have independent cross licensing agreements. Typically each organization has to evaluate patent risks for themselves.
Rahul
And, given the track record, its a chance I wouldn't take.
On 01/27/2011 05:18 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
All of that may very well be true, but isn't really a factor if an Oracle representative submits a package that says "this package contains GPLed code".
Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case, different vendors have different considerations. For instance, one vendor can knowingly infringe on some other vendor's patents because they have a good patent portfolio and can always use that a defensive shield. There will be no lawsuits and no patent license. Just a partnership with a arrangement not to sue each other or their customers.
Rahul
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Generally, the GPL does not mandate giving anyone credit, in some particular form or fashion.
I wasn´t thinking of the legal angle. I was thinking about public discourse of portraying Oracle as some sort of enemies of open source, and "independent" (while backed by other corporations) as pure and honest. This patina of "a struggle between freedom loving programmers vs evil corporations" that permeates many comments about Libre-vs-OO.o -despite ignoring the fact that that same corporation is puting lots of man hours = money into advancing FOSS projects- is what sickens me, and makes me inmediately want to side with the guys who imho have all the right to shape the future of their project as they see fit, just as Mozilla does to Firefox´ future or Novell has to the FOSS projects they started.
I´m not even questioning the fork, I´m questioning the shady arguments and BS. Novell and others saying " we´re forking because we disagree on the direction the project should take, and want to control it differently " would have been much more honest.
Just my $0.02 FC
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case, different vendors have different considerations.
Oh really?
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
OpenOffice.org uses a single open-source license for the source code and a separate documentation license for most documents published on the website without the intention of being included in the product. The source-code license is the GNU Lesser General Public License. Effective OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta, OpenOffice.org will use the LGPL v3. The document license is the Public Document License (PDL).
Works beside code donated to the project under cover of the Sun Microsystems Inc. Contributor Agreement (SCA) are held jointly by Sun Microsystems for the project under the project's prevailing license, in this case, the LGPL v.3.
FC
On 01/27/2011 06:48 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case, different vendors have different considerations.
Oh really?
Yes, really.
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
OpenOffice.org uses a single open-source license for the source code and a separate documentation license for most documents published on the website without the intention of being included in the product. The source-code license is the GNU Lesser General Public License.
Read carefully what you are quoting. The license is LGPL and not GPL
Rahul
On 01/27/2011 06:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Generally, the GPL does not mandate giving anyone credit, in some particular form or fashion.
I wasn´t thinking of the legal angle. I was thinking about public discourse of portraying Oracle as some sort of enemies of open source, and "independent" (while backed by other corporations) as pure and honest
Not a single person involved with fork have said anything about Oracle being the enemy or evil. If you are going to criticize the arguments use the actual reasons given by the contributors involved in the fork which are quite different. Here is one reference
http://lwn.net/Articles/407339/
Being backed from corporations doesn't prevent a project from being independent. It depends on the governance model and licensing structure. There are many successful ones ranging from the non-profit ones such as Apache, Mozilla (which has a corporation as well ) and Document Foundation. There are also different trade associations such as Eclipse and the Linux Foundation. They are all different from each other and give the projects a good level of independence allowing multiple organizations to work together on a codebase while competing in other ways.
Rahul
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
Read carefully what you are quoting. The license is LGPL and not GPL
Lesser GPL is what it implies.
I take GPL and LGPL as part of the same family of licenses. ie GPL and LGPL have more in common than, say, the BSD license.
I don´t even know what we´re discussing anymore, and I´m not even sure what you meant or were trying to prove with the phrase "Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case, different vendors have different considerations."
FC
On 01/27/2011 07:14 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Read carefully what you are quoting. The license is LGPL and not GPL
Lesser GPL is what it implies.
I take GPL and LGPL as part of the same family of licenses. ie GPL and LGPL have more in common than, say, the BSD license.
I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
I don´t even know what we´re discussing anymore, and I´m not even sure what you meant or were trying to prove with the phrase "Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case, different vendors have different considerations."
I wasn't replying to Sam Varshavchik about patent considerations and how the license affects that. You cut the latter part of the email. Feel free to read the thread again if anything in unclear.
Rahul
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
It was an error on my part, I often use "GPL" as a generic term to mean "GPL or LPGL" meaning "Free Software under GNU licenses".
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I´m not writing a white paper or encyclopedic text.
FC
On 01/27/2011 01:52 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
It was an error on my part, I often use "GPL" as a generic term to mean "GPL or LPGL" meaning "Free Software under GNU licenses".
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I´m not writing a white paper or encyclopedic text.
FC
Gentle Suggestion - when people nit pick - ignore them and just focus on the real issues ...
gene/
On 01/28/2011 12:22 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
It was an error on my part, I often use "GPL" as a generic term to mean "GPL or LPGL" meaning "Free Software under GNU licenses".
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I´m not writing a white paper or encyclopedic text.
When it comes to licensing or anything legal for that matter, it helps to be precise. If you don't care about that, fine but I don't want to add to the confusion that already exists LGPL and GPL despite related to each other but one cannot equate the two Even GPLv2 and GPLv3 has a big difference in dealing with patents for instance.
Rahul
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 13:55 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 01/27/2011 01:52 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram metherid@gmail.com wrote:
I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
It was an error on my part, I often use "GPL" as a generic term to mean "GPL or LPGL" meaning "Free Software under GNU licenses".
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I´m not writing a white paper or encyclopedic text.
FC
Gentle Suggestion - when people nit pick - ignore them and just focus on the real issues ...
gene/
I usually don't cut into semi-political threads but as someone that established a proprietary software that uses OSS tools and plans to release parts of its own code as OSS, licensing is a -huge- deal, or in your words, the "real" issue.
The seemingly small different between GPL and LGPL (with or w/o the "plus") and/or the different between proprietary, BSD, GPLv2, GPLv3, etc can mean the difference of having a successful company and drowning under a shower of lawsuits, and in the case of an OSS project, the different between having multiple contributors and flourishing community and facing the wrong end of multiple cease and desist letters. (In this case, one of the main reasons LibreOffice was founded was due to Sun's Contributor licensing agreement)
Even as an end user, I'd strongly advise against treating licenses as anything trivial. (Hint: Read Microsoft EULA)
On 01/27/2011 01:52 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram
metherid@gmail.com wrote:
I am well aware of all that but nothing you are
saying contradicts what
I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
It was an error on my part, I often use "GPL" as a
generic term to
mean "GPL or LPGL" meaning "Free Software under
GNU licenses".
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I´m not writing a white paper or encyclopedic
text.
FC
Gentle Suggestion - when people nit pick - ignore them and just focus on the real issues ...
gene/
But that would put a huge damper on all the theological muckmouthing and change our society forever. I'm sorry but I can't let you do that, Dave.
-Iwao
-------------------------------------- Get the new Internet Explorer 8 optimized for Yahoo! JAPAN http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/ie8/
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Fernando Cassia -
Gene Heskett -
Genes MailLists -
Gilboa Davara -
Mickey -
Rahul Sundaram -
Sam Varshavchik -
夜神 岩男