On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Lars Noodén <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew Ziem wrote: >> "the fork" is under the LGPL... > > A fork is a fork, which they have had the freedom to fork OOo because > OOo is under the LGPL. Just because their fork is also under the LGPL > does not mean their is an obligation for the original to accept material > from the fork.
Sure there's no obligation, but you are complaining it (the fork exists because the original does not accept the material). > Since the fork was made to include technically and legally undesirable > components it would be a stupid move to accept tainted mods. I'm not sure what you mean. As one example, what is wrong with it with the GStreamer integration for Linux? > auditing is not an option, the onus is not on the original team to be > chasing a fork. How is that different than the already existing ~30 external modules such as libxml2 and mozilla? Also, that assumes that Sun Microsystems will never find a way to reconcile the dispute regarding the SCA. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
