To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=80408
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 8 13:36:46 +0000 2007 ------- This file is actually not a binary (DLL) at all, it is a small text file with a misleading name... It contains a few lines of output from some tool, and presumably has been committed by mistake. Anyway, just as a theoretical question, even if the file actually was a binary DLL, but wasn't used at run-time, how would it then break LGPL? This is an interesting question... Then that it happened to be an executable file would be just coincidental, from licensing point of view it is would just be a random binary blob of bits. (Hmm, and actually, even if it was an actual DLL that was linked with OOo at run-time, if nobody claimed that particular file was under the LGPL, there would be no need to provide sources for it, would there? That's the point of the LGPL, that you can link LGPL code with non-LGPL code, isn't it?) Anyway, I am not entirely serious, forgive me for the licensing ramblings above. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
