On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:40:09PM +0100, Johnny Rosenberg wrote:
> By the way, since this is the discussion list, why is OpenOffice.org using
> the .zip format? Since it is Open Source, wouldn't .tar.bz be a better
> choice?
>
Both implementations are opensource. Zip is an archive format that
(opt
I was doing some initial INGOT training at Sandwich Technology College
UK (place where sandwiches were invented :-) ) that has 1000 computers.
They intend to migrate 1000 seats to OOo imminently.
Just thought that another success is nice to know about :-) I think
quite a lot more schools are usin
Ian Lynch wrote:
I was doing some initial INGOT training at Sandwich Technology College
UK (place where sandwiches were invented :-) )
Not at all - they were invented by the Earl of Sandwich who was too
engrossed at the gambling table to get up for dinner
--
Gordon wrote:
Ian Lynch wrote:
I was doing some initial INGOT training at Sandwich Technology College
UK (place where sandwiches were invented :-) )
Not at all - they were invented by the Earl of Sandwich who was too
engrossed at the gambling table to get up for dinner
Who said irony w
Just wanted to pass this on in hope that this might helps someone. Big part
of the problem was attempting to change the file extensions. I recently
re-installed XP, re-defaulted settings. There is a setting, in file types,
that
hides or does not allow you to change the file extensions.
I have a friend that was able to open the corrupted file on his MAC using
Neo Office.
just wanted to share this.
Rene
In a message dated 3/7/2008 10:13:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just wanted to pass this on in hope that this might helps someone. Big
2008/3/7, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Just wanted to pass this on in hope that this might helps someone. Big
> part
> of the problem was attempting to change the file extensions. I recently
> re-installed XP, re-defaulted settings. There is a setting, in file
> types, that
> hi
Bottom post
John Boyle wrote:
To jonathon: That is NOT the way it sounds! However, I will take your
word for it, until I see the real results! :-(
jonathon wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:55 PM, John Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People who have files in OOo format that they have made
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 10:01:37 +
Gordon wrote:
> Ian Lynch wrote:
> > I was doing some initial INGOT training at Sandwich Technology
> > College UK (place where sandwiches were invented :-) )
>
> Not at all - they were invented by the Earl of Sandwich who was too
> engrossed at the gambling t
I was shocked, if I have read now, that OOo 3.0 will be licensed under the
LGPL3.
Why?
Isn't it possible to dual-license it, so that it is under the LGPL _and_ LGPL3 ?
Greatings
theuserbl
Btw: Yes, I wrote "LGPL _and_ LGPL3" and not "LGPL2 _and_ LGPL3". Because only
the LGPL2 is _the_ LGPL.
On 03/06/2008 10:26 PM, Michael Adams wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:54:24 -0600
> Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>
>> How does it sound then?
>>
>
> The LGPL is the licence that the program is released under.
> OpenOffice.org (OO.o) is given to you as long as you adhere to your part
> of the LGPL.
The only difference is to avoid the introduction of DRM technology into
OOo under chapter 3? Are you doing such a thing?
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:31:30 -0600, theUser BL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I was shocked, if I have read now, that OOo 3.0 will be licensed under
the LGPL3.
Why?
Isn
This basically says that you CAN distribute software under Bittorrent.
Since Bittorrent uses nodes where the users are not aware they are
distributing GPL-LGPL software and they give the right to deny
distributing this software if you dont agree to be a distributor.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:
The only substancial difference between LGPL3.0 and LGPL is the clause 3
to avoid DMCA involvement.
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:31:30 -0600, theUser BL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I was shocked, if I have read now, that OOo 3.0 will be licensed under
the LGPL3.
Why?
Isn't it possible to dua
On 03/07/2008 12:00 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> This basically says that you CAN distribute software under Bittorrent.
> Since Bittorrent uses nodes where the users are not aware they are
> distributing GPL-LGPL software and they give the right to deny
> distributing this software if you
To Alexandro Colorado: As this message states, the code itself will be
different and incompatible and that is what I based my statement on! Can
you show me how an incompatibility of code can be just a change of
license and not a stumbling block?
Alexandro Colorado wrote:
File format or data is
On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:05:38 -0600, NoOp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 03/07/2008 12:00 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
This basically says that you CAN distribute software under Bittorrent.
Since Bittorrent uses nodes where the users are not aware they are
distributing GPL-LGPL software and they
OOo has gone through many licenceses on the commercial side (the so called
CCDL and later became some other SUN license). Then again the codebase
never changed. At one point it was very intensively debated to switch it
to GPL exclusively (no LGPL). That change never happened, however if it
To Robin Laing: Because the initial information states the New Lgpl 3
code will be incompatible with the older LGPL, thereby rendering all
older versions obsolete! That is what was stated and unless someone
cannot understand English they should clarify that quickly! :-(
Robin Laing wrote:
Bo
> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
> a copy of the Program."
In the US and several other countries this is indeed the case: the fact
that you were able to get a legal copy of the program gives you the
right to run it, just like you have the right to read a bo
John wrote:
> To Robin Laing: Because the initial information states the New Lgpl code
> will be incompatible with the older LGPL, thereby rendering all older
> versions obsolete!
LGPL 3.0 is incompatible with LGPL 2.x (where 'x"is whatever version OOo uses.)
The incompatibly is purely betwee
On 03/07/2008 02:13 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:05:38 -0600, NoOp <> wrote:
>> Ah, I see that now.
>>
>> But for the end user, wouldn't:
>>
>> "You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run
>> a copy of the Program."
>>
>> indicate that the end-u
John Boyle wrote:
To Robin Laing: Because the initial information states the New Lgpl 3
code will be incompatible with the older LGPL, thereby rendering all
older versions obsolete! That is what was stated and unless someone
cannot understand English they should clarify that quickly! :-(
Robi
23 matches
Mail list logo
