Re: [Libreoffice] FYI: Latest Oracle move wrt to OpenOffice.org

Hi Norbert,

On 01/06/2011 23:07, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
[...]

> But that is _not_ the license, and with Apache License they would not
> have to make it available at ALL to anybody... just as is the case
> with their proprietary OO fork today.
> Hence the Enthusiastic blog campaign that flourished from IBMers in
> the minutes/hours following the public announcement of Oracle's intend
> to dump OpenOffice.org in Apache's lap.
>
> But that's fine, IBM is free to conduct their business they way they
> want, as long as there is no doubt in anybody's mind that that latest
> Oracle' move has nothing to do with 'unifying/strengthening the
> 'community', but everything to do with Oracle's contractual obligation
> to IBM and IBM desire to continue their proprietary fork.
+1
> "OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual licensed under both the GNU
> Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for
> entities to change the code without releasing their changes.
> Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony."
> source: http://ibm-lotus-symphony.software.informer.com/wiki/
>
> If anybody in unconvinced why copyright assignment or Apache-like
> full-copyright-license-no-string-attached are evil the quote above
> should settle that.

Thanks for this (makes me feel less alone ;) and I wish you could be 
heard by some medias...
Kind regards
Sophie