>> I want a customer support telephone #.
>>
>> Shay Owens
>
> <snip>
>> "... Open Office is NOT intended to be sold. It is sort of a public
>> domain software intended to be free to the masses and with no strings
>> an any kind, even in the licensing of such software. ..."
> <snip>
>
> Open Office software is not "sort of a public domain software"! It is
> copyrighted and protected under license. There are quite a few things
> that you can not do with the source code that you can do with public
> domain software. There are now a number of corporations that have
> discovered in various courts of law that you must comply with the
> license terms, including license terms specified by licenses that
> allow free distribution.
>
>
> Bill
Well, if you feel like being picky why don't you simply answer the
question that was asked and not snipe?
IMO OOo is indeed akin to "public domain" in many aspects of the
license and protection afforded to it. In fact, I have had more than
one person tell me that you get what you pay for and things like that
about OOo. One small company in town here refuses to even look at it,
insisting that if it's any good it wouldn't be free and they "they" will
extract their moneys somehow, probably in support charges. I could save
them a bundle of money, but ... . I even tried to sell them one of the
pay-for versions but since they already knew about OOo, that was a lost
cause. I guess it's OK; I get more money from them with that attitude.
I'm the first one they call with a problem, but "researching" anything
new isn't their strong point unless your name is Microsoft.
I wrote to the level of the impression I had of my audience, I didn't
say it was exactly the same and that you could do everything with it you
could do with public domain software, and I didn't say that there were
no corporations discovering that in various courts. I did say it wasn't
intended to be sold, and licensing terms, so as to not give the
impression there weren't any, was mentioned.
I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. In fact I stand by
what I said.
IMO, I think being able to charge anything but a trivial amount of money
to "sell" OOo to anyone should be forbidden because those same people
who paid what they felt was a fair price end up here, pissed off and
with a bad taste in their mouths that lingers for a long time and also
IMO makes them non-converts.
To charge anything *more* than a trivial amount to recoup S&H etc.
should require not only the source code as it does now, but the addition
of a substantial and stated value-added feature set, say, over and
above the original OOo, which should also have to be mentioned as being
free. As an example, if I take OOo and create a specialized financial
spreadsheet for a company, then I should simply be able to say I did
that, so I charge this much, but if you want to do it yourself, which
most people cannot, here's where you can get the basic programs for
free: Ooo.
Point of interest: I have not yet heard of any corporation
"discovering that in various courts",
although it does interest me.
Can you, or anyone who wishes to, cite any specific information to
support that? I'm not saying it isn't so: I am saying I'd like to read
more about it. Please don't quote anyone or any article; just cite URLs
or search terms you know will lead to pertinent, relevant information.
I was unsuccessful in my own attempts.
Twayne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
