On 8/5/06, Kaj Kandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chad, great you chime in on this. However, I think if you do what you are saying should there not be an obligation to change at least the name of the "product".
There is nothing in the LGPL about names. As I said, trademark restrictions are another matter. I'm jsut talking about the LGPL here. "If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from
a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."
What does the last line say there? "Third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code." If www-openoffice.org didn't change the code - then they would be considered a third party. If they changed the code, and they distributed their new code under the LGPL, then they would have to distribute it. Otherwise I'd have to give my buddy a copy of the source on the CD everytime I burned them a copy of the program or I would be in violation of the LGPL (because my friend got the binary from me on CD, the source would also have to be available from me on CD, according to your same-place, same-media logic.) Your example of the FSF going after Linux distros is different, because they modified the code. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ http://www.whatisopenoffice.org/ http://www.chadwsmith.com/
