On 05/06/2011 Nick Kew wrote:
On 5 Jun 2011, at 09:25, eric b wrote:
Apologies, the most up to date information is here :
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/External/Modules
Thanks for that.
Looks like there's some LGPL stuff but no strong copyleft.
Most dictionaries are missing from
On Jun 4, 2011 6:25 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
...
2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly
awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single
platform and programming model. In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up
to have
an alternative in place. Whistling in the dark here ...
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 23:22
To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org; general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0
Hi,
First over all, I'm not a native speaker, but I think I can answer.
Apologies if I'm off topic, this thread is extremely difficult to
follow.
Le 5 juin 11 à 09:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
I was thinking about binary-only components such as a linker
library or shared library
Le 5 juin 11 à 10:09, eric b a écrit :
Hi,
First over all, I'm not a native speaker, but I think I can answer.
Apologies if I'm off topic, this thread is extremely difficult to
follow.
Le 5 juin 11 à 09:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :
I was thinking about binary-only components such
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting ...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me for interrupting ...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote:
LibreOffice uses a dual license
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went
to a fair bit
of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented otherwise on Rob's
blog and elsewhere.
And rightfully so, if your
Hello Jochen,
2011/6/4 Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who
went to a fair bit
of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all
distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is
also the case that contributors of code to LibreOffice are required
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all
distributions of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is
also the case that
, June 04, 2011 11:59
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com; 'Jochen Wiedmann'
Subject: RE: OO/LO License
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it should be clear that all distributions
of OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice are under the LGPL3. It is also the case
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two communities might
mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is LO/TDF might contribute to
Apache OO by providing portions of the LO codebase as MPL binary
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-)
## Manfred
Maybe stop lurking :-) Your contributions will be valuable
On 4 Jun 2011 22:06, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote:
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-)
## Manfred
On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two communities might
mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is LO/TDF might contribute to
Apache OO by
Agreed. The main problem is if say the majority of knowledgeable developers
only want their work licensed copyleft.
On 4 Jun 2011 23:50, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it shoul...
The code was
That is true. There is also the possibility that there are
a set, possibly large, of knowledgeable developers who only
want their work non-copyleft. And another set that really couldn't
care one way or another. That's simply the nature of FOSS licenses.
I develop and release code under all types
18 matches
Mail list logo
