> Not that it really matters, but as long as they redistribute a software
> covered by (L)GPL, the requirement of section 3 of the license still
> apply. In short, they give away their "demo", anybody who receive said
> demo is entitled to receive the source as per section 3 of the GPL.[1]
Don't these violate the GPL? Again, IANAL, but it seems to me that
if you are allowed the source code and free redistribution of the code
and software under the GPL, this license violates it.
--Nathan
As a budding law student it appears to me that the GPL license allows ANYONE
to use the source for any purpose as long as they include the GPL license
with the product. It appears to me that the GPL license is included within
their license so satisfying the GPL agreement. As long as they do not use
Ooo trademarks it seems to me that they may use the source as they wish, if
I understand the law correctly. In fact, I believe that at least two other
companies use Ooo as its source-- NeoOffice and Staroffice; AND Staroffice
also charges for the product but does not offer modifications as opensource.
What is the difference between StarOffice doing this and Butler?
Also, the GPL does not specify which source they must offer for free.
Butler and Star could offer Ooo as the source if, in fact that is their
originating source. But they do not necessarily have to offer
modifications. The fact that they charge for the product is irrelevant.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Probable-GPL-violations---Butler-Office-Pro-tp14662459p14991416.html
Sent from the openoffice - dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
