On Fri, 03 May 2002 09:45:21 EDT, the world broke into rejoicing as Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Nicos Panayides wrote: > > > I was wondering now that you mensioned the java2 vm. I've seen on the > > "packages being worked on" list that openoffice debs are being prepared. > > I am not sure how accurate this list is but openoffice is on. As far as > > i know both openoffice and sun's jdk have the same licenses. How come > > sun's jdk (or derivatives like ibm and blackdown) are not considered for > > non-free? It's not like there is no demand for 1.3+ compliant > > vm/libraries. > > OpenOffice is available under the Sun Industry Source License or the LGPL > (dual licensed)[0]. The LGPL is clearly a DFSG-compliant license. Sun's JDK > is under the Sun Community Source License, which is not[1]. > > [0] http://www.openoffice.org/license.html > > [1] http://Www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html
I thought that the build process of OpenOffice depended on [I'm being vague here :-(] "some bundle of Java2 stuff," which would have the result that despite OpenOffice itself being "free software," since a build requires distinctly nonfree stuff, it can't go in "free." It's almost enough to make you want to throw up your hands and say, "why bother trying?" -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc")) http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #24. "I will maintain a realistic assessment of my strengths and weaknesses. Even though this takes some of the fun out of the job, at least I will never utter the line "No, this cannot be! I AM INVINCIBLE!!!" (After that, death is usually instantaneous.)" <http://www.eviloverlord.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
