On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:19 AM, toki wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/06/2011 12:29, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in
>> libreoffice, no?
>
> What changes?
I mean that libreoffice can take from the openoffic
2011.06.03 18:52, toki rašė:
On 03/06/2011 06:30, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
What for? IANAL, but as far as I understand, Apache license allows *us*
to use OOo's code, perhaps even relicensing it under LGPL/MPL.
My point is that there will _not_ be any source code to use.
From the text I quoted in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 06:30, Rimas Kudelis wrote:
> What for? IANAL, but as far as I understand, Apache license allows *us*
to use OOo's code, perhaps even relicensing it under LGPL/MPL.
My point is that there will _not_ be any source code to use.
jonathon
-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/06/2011 05:26, andré b wrote:
> AGPL is a stricter version of GPL. It adds restrictions on Internet
> interactions.
AGPL preserves the freedoms that GPL doesn't.
> LGPL now means _Lesser_ General Public License.
I know what it means,. I als
2011.06.03 06:19, toki rašė:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/06/2011 12:29, Mike Dupont wrote:
This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in libreoffice,
no?
What changes?
Under the new OOo license there is no requirement for source code to be
availabl
toki a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/06/2011 12:29, Mike Dupont wrote:
This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in libreoffice,
no?
What changes?
Under the new OOo license there is no requirement for source code to be
available, much less
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/06/2011 12:29, Mike Dupont wrote:
> This means that changes can be cherry picked out and included in libreoffice,
> no?
What changes?
Under the new OOo license there is no requirement for source code to be
available, much less sent up stream.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Andras Timar wrote:
> Apache Foundation requires Apache License which is not a copyleft license.
> It allows use of the source code – and my translations, too – for the
> development of proprietary software.
This means that changes can be cherry picked out and inc
Hi Andras,
I understand your position. I think that the Oracle movement means
they want put code out of GPL for a hipotetical future developpement
(propietary, of course).
This and too that they perhaps want split the developpers community
atracting corporative interest to an OOo supported by Apac
Hi,
Probably you've read the news, OOo code and trademarks were given to
Apache Foundation. For details start reading
here:
http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/
and here: http://www.gnome.org/~michael/b
10 matches
Mail list logo