Of course no one here has suggested that Openoffice.org is "tainted". My
point was that its success does not inure to the credit of opensource,
because it was developed at Sun Microsystems as Star Office. I use the
software myself and prefer it, but I also have MS Office 2003 because
people sometimes send me MS doc's which don't display correctly in
Openoffice.
The afore mentioned Code::Blocks appears to be a genuine opensource
project, unless we want to redefine opensoource as the quip about the
Linux Kernel might suggest.
Bobby
Richard Gray wrote:
It seems to me that just because Sun (IBM, Novell) etc pay people to develop
and maintain OpenOffice.org (not to be confused with Sun's Star Office) makes
it somehow tainted. It's still Open Source, you can still compile it yourself
if you want to, alter it, etc, etc. Is Ubuntu similarly tainted because Mark
Shuttleworth has ploughed his cash into it, or OpenSuse because Novell - and
worse yet because Novell and Microsoft have agreed not to sue one another?
Could someone tell me what is a perfect example of an Open Source project
then? The Linux Kernel, perhaps?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Sdcc-user mailing list
Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
