http://www.butlerofficepro.com/
http://www.butlerofficepro.com/ebay
It's certainly a modified version of OpenOffice. They don't mention
OpenOffice nor do they provide source. Right down to the soffice.bin
executable in the OS X package.
Also check out
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-2008-Office
Hello Kevin,
ButlerPro is not one of our contributors. However, I'd be curious to
know how you can see that they're using the OpenOffice.org codebase.
Best Regards,
Charles-H. Schulz.
Kevin Ogden a écrit :
http://www.butlerofficepro.com/
http://www.butlerofficepro.com/ebay
It's certainly
Hi Charles,
* you see this in the screenshots on their website
* you can download a trial version
** this trial version claims that on my box that a newer version of
butler office is installed :-)
** The Windows version identifies itself in the about box as a build
9095 (OOE680m6). The Mac ver
Martin
my fault, I hadn't found the screenshots...
Best,
Charles.
Martin Hollmichel a écrit :
Hi Charles,
* you see this in the screenshots on their website
* you can download a trial version
** this trial version claims that on my box that a newer version of
butler office is installed :-)
The Mac version looks like the Aqua build.
All the libraries etc looks like what is found in a typical OOo install.
CLosed license and impossibility to save anything with the trial
version...
Etc...
Jean-Christophe Helary
On 7 janv. 08, at 22:11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
Hi Charles,
* yo
All,
I downloaded the free trial, here is a copy of the license agreement it
comes with:
Butler Software Solutions
License Agreement
Single User License
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE
USING THE BUTLER SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE. BY USING THE BUTLER
All,
I am not sure what this line means:
IF THE BUTLER SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY,
CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE".
Joseph Armbruster
On Jan 7, 2008 9:46 AM, Joseph Armbruster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> All,
>
> I downloaded the free trial, here is a copy of the licen
All,
IF THE BUTLER SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK
"DISAGREE/DECLINE".
So... by installing, I am violating the license agreement?
Joseph Armbruster
On Jan 7, 2008 9:47 AM, Joseph Armbruster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> All,
>
> I am not sure what this line means:
On Monday 07 January 2008 15:50, Joseph Armbruster wrote:
> All,
>
> IF THE BUTLER SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED
> ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE".
>
> So... by installing, I am violating the license agreement?
>
> Joseph Armbruster
>
> On Jan 7, 2008 9:47 AM, Joseph Armbruster
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:11 +0100, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
> I assume that also people who paid for the office also get no access
> to
> the source code.
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
Hubert Figuiere wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:11 +0100, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
I assume that also people who paid for the office also get no access
to
the source code.
Not that it really matters, but as long as they redistribute a software
covered by (L)GPL, the requirement of sec
On 21 janv. 08, at 14:17, weekendadventure wrote:
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
> 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]
D
StarOffice uses OOo as a "library" and supposedly adds only "coating"
to it. Hence it does not have to release its proprietary code.
What do you mean by "coating"?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Probable-GPL-violations---Butler-Office-Pro-tp14662459p14998758.html
Sent
On 21 janv. 08, at 23:51, weekendadventure wrote:
StarOffice uses OOo as a "library" and supposedly adds only "coating"
to it. Hence it does not have to release its proprietary code.
What do you mean by "coating"?
I mean that I think StarOffice adds things (like other librairies, or
template
I guess I would have to buy Staroffice to know for sure but I guess I just
don't see the difference. Just because they might be associated directly
with Ooo doesn't mean they do not have to abide by the GNU.
I don't actually think any of the discussed companies are doing anything
wrong but if the
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 07:16 -0800, weekendadventure wrote:
> Coating by StarOffice is
> still a violation
Sun own the copyright of OpenOffice.org. Therefore they are not required
to abide to the (L)GPL for code they own.
Similarly, they can relicense the code under a different license to
whoever
They don't mention OpenOffice
They don't have to mention Ooo-- just provide the open source license
agreement. Also, they may be using an older version of Ooo license that
allows for more loopholes.
I have a feeling it's just a guy or 3 in a basement because the reply was
instantaneous and
Sun own the copyright of OpenOffice.org. Therefore they are not required
to abide to the (L)GPL for code they own.
Similarly, they can relicense the code under a different license to
whoever they want.
They do (own the copyright)? So they got people to do the programming for
them through open
On 2008.01.21. 17:37, weekendadventure wrote:
Sun own the copyright of OpenOffice.org. Therefore they are not required
to abide to the (L)GPL for code they own.
Similarly, they can relicense the code under a different license to
whoever they want.
They do (own the copyright)? So they got peop
>
> They do (own the copyright)? So they got people to do the programming for
> them through open source and then copyright it and monopolize the ability
> to
hmm. well, actually, they bought stardivision and opensourced
staroffice. guess what, it was named openoffice.org...
Rich
---
weekendadventure wrote:
Well, that might be different then. It is not what I had been told happened
with Ooo but if you are correct that might make a difference.
Please read http://about.openoffice.org/index.html for information about
the historical backgrounds,
So you are saying that they
> Even so, they could not claim ownership of code developed by individuals who
> were not compensated.
"Compensation" has little or no relevance here. Only code submitted by
contributors who has signed the Joint Copyright Assignment contract is accepted
into the upstream OpenOffice.org codeba
23 matches
Mail list logo
