[lpi-discuss] Re: BS' final comments on 'spam filters' -- Sun,
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Wed Dec 13 13:01:17 EST 2006
From: Anselm Lingnau
> Sigh. Read the LGPL, already.
The one that comes with OpenOffice.org? Never assume they are "all the same." ;-)
> Whether *Sun* has a cross-license with Microsoft is irrelevant.
But in _your_ context of "Novell forking OpenOffice.org," _it_is_!
So, _again_, there is _no_ difference between what Novell is doing that Sun _already_ has.
Are you ready to agree to the point yet?
Or are you going to keep continuing on your rabid fixation with Novell?
> then nobody *including* Sun
So you're ready to admit this has _nothing_ to do with Novell?
Great! Thank you! ;-)
> gets to distribute OpenOffice.org
> *under the LGPL*.
Under the LGPL as the FSF would prefer, no.
But there are _hundreds_ of pieces of GPL/LGPL software in a distro - including the kernel (including submissions from your sacred IBM) - that don't hold true to that.
So what gives?
And that all aside, OpenOffice.org already has this issue with its current MS Office support.
So _what_, in fact, "changes" with adding OpenXML support?
Nothing, absolutely _nothing_!
By your own definition, the only "real LGPL OpenOffice.org" is the one that comes with *0* MS Office document support at all.
Because it has been "tainted" by Sun's cross-license with Microsoft for almost 3 years now.
> so far Microsoft has not seen fit to crack down on this,
> for whatever reason.
And this changes with OpenXML how?
At least with OpenXML, with assistance from Red Hat, they have puclicly declared it's "royalty free IP."
Now whether you believe them or not isn't the point.
The point is we don't have even that on the _existing_ MS Office support in OpenOffice.org!
So, again, _what_changed_?
And _how_ is Novell forking it?
> because the LGPL guarantees
The stock LGPL, yes.
Sun is free to be the authority on what the LGPL means on OpenOffice.org.
But that's besides the point.
> that Joe Blow's Software Emporium, too, can make and
> sell thousands of OO.o CD-ROMs if they're so inclined.
Which is why Novell has _only_ stated they would distribute it with its distros.
Since the OpenXML module isn't required for OpenOffice.org to function, even if it's not LGPL, it doesn't violate the license.
And it's not a GPL or LGPL violation to bundled non-GPL/LGPL components with them.
About the only two distros that are "extemely anal" on 100% restributable software only are Debian and Fedora, although Novell has gotten OpenSuSE almost to the same level.
So, again, I don't what any of this has to do with Novell?
> This state of affairs sends the message
We can play that game all-day.
And the ignorance of the Linux community is far more responsible for that "damage" any day of the week.
And that includes the mis-mesh of confusion you are sending out. ;-)
which is what Novell's
deal with Microsoft says (later backpedalling notwithstanding).
> The »Novell forks OO.o« meme goes back to Pamela Jones
> who, as is painfully
obvious to those who follow Groklaw,
> has her own axe to grind (and tediously so).
> I don't think anybody here has actually claimed this.
> I certainly don't.
Um, did you like ... um ... miss the whole reason why this started?
(hint, it starts with the response to the LPI-Novell announcement)
Again, this has *0* to do with Novell.
If it has _anything_ to do with _anybody_, it's Sun's ownership of OOo and their cross-license with MS.
It's a good reason why OOo's export/import got better in version 2. ;-)
Hell, why not throw Red Hat in here? After all, they've provided counsel to MS on their public licensing of their IP - like OpenXML.
Sent from my Treo
More information about the lpi-discuss