Immanuel Giulea wrote > the GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a "true open > source". > > Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the > information > and apply it on the materials?
Actually it's the other way around. The ASL is superior in it's "openness". That is why LO can use code from AOO but not the other way around. My personal understanding is that the ASL allows any commercial company to take the code at any point and start a new product without any legal obligation to return any improvements to the community... In any case that is just confusing and irrelevant for users. The main difference is that OpenOffice development stopped for a year and that Apache is slowly developing AOO . TDF adopted a time based release model (similar to Ubuntu) and started a fast pace evolution of LibreOffice. Currently the evolution of LO is such that adopting AOO is going back in time. See these pages for the most obvious differences http://www.libreoffice.org/download/3-5-new-features-and-fixes/ http://www.libreoffice.org/download/3-6-new-features-and-fixes/ and much more coming for the 4.0 release ;) Hope this helps... Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/LO-vs-AOO-GPL-LGPL-vs-ASL-licences-tp4026736p4026839.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
