Hi Michael
Michael Meeks wrote (6-2-2008 12:02)
On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 20:57 +0100, Cor Nouws wrote:
Michael Meeks wrote (5-2-2008 17:30)
Sure - so (it seems to me) rather hard for anyone except Sun to
prosecute an LGPL violation here - since it's quite possible that these
guys have a confidential agreement with Sun that makes it perfectly
legal for them to rip off people's code, and their customers, and get
away with it. How can we know that is not the case ? How can anyone be
sure if litigation was commenced, Sun wouldn't just settle for cash.
One of the deep joys of the JCA with it's single steward.
Writing this like you do, reads to me as if you are actually suspecting
Sun. Is there any clear reason why you do so, or why we should?
If not, it is a more theoretical discussion, which could benefit from
other wording, IMO.
Sure - there is an easy reply to this question from Sun :-) that is for
them to simply divulge whom it has licensed OpenOffice.org to, and under
what terms.
One again, I read suspicion from the words you choose and your answer is
not straight to me.
It can be my relatively low knowledge of the English language. But as I
see it: when you work in the same project, it makes no sense (...) to
give the impression that you might have a reason to accuse someone else
in that project.
I hope you can understand how I feel.
Kindest regards,
Cor
--
"The Year of 3" -2008- "Het jaar van 3"
Cor Nouws
Arnhem - Netherlands - nl.OpenOffice.org - marketing contact
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
