On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 19:31 +, theUser BL 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 dual-license it, so that it is under the LGPL _and_
LGPL3 ?
It's possible, but pointless. The whole point to GPL3 is to
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.
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?
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
