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 missin
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 (the previous link
> looks outdated)
Thanks for that.
Looks like there's some LGPL stuff but no strong copyleft.
--
Nick Kew
Available
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 a
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 tha
'd need 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
On Jun 4, 2011 6:25 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton"
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
C++ and the Java depe
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 o
2011 15:50
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OO/LO License
On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c009001cc22e9$73f6cbe0$5be463a0$@acm.org%3e>
> Just to un-muddy the waters a little, it shou
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" 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 used under multiple l
On 6/4/2011 11:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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 to affirm that their
contributions
Dave Fisher wrote on 06/04/2011 05:35:32 PM:
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher
wrote:
> >>
> >> Once licensing issues are understood then a way the two
> communities might mutually cooperate becomes clear. And here it is
> LO/
tails to manage with regard to
code provenance in order to pull this off, but it should work and managing
code provenance is a good idea either way.]
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 14:36
To: general@incubator.ap
der to pull this off, but it should
work and managing code provenance is a good idea either way.]
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 14:36
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OO/LO License
[ ... ] Components and
On Jun 4, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher 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
Maybe stop lurking :-) Your contributions will be valuable
On 4 Jun 2011 22:06, "Manfred A. Reiter" wrote:
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-)
## Manfred
sorry for last mail, mistake from a lurker ;-)
## Manfred
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Dave Fisher 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 libraries.
>
> Sam, is
, 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
On Jun 4, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> 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 c
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
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 to affirm
> that thei
Hello Jochen,
2011/6/4 Jochen Wiedmann
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps 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.
>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Simon Phipps 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 understanding is righ
On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> wrote:
>> Excuse me for interrupting ...
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
>>
>> I've been reading MPL a few times in this
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
wrote:
> Excuse me for interrupting ...
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, wrote:
>
>> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
>
> I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither
>
> http://www.libreoffice.org/download/
Excuse me for interrupting ...
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM, wrote:
> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/
nor
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
are mention
25 matches
Mail list logo
