incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] NOTICE and LICENSE file
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:47:02 GMT
Hi Oliver;

On 03/29/12 10:23, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>
>>
>> The advertisement clause is this one:
>>
>> " 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this 
>> software
>> must display the following acknowledgement:
>> This product includes software developed by the <organization>."
>>
>> It is somewhat inconvenient for end distributors but there are deep 
>> political
>> reasons behind the FSF's hate for this clause (somewhat related to
>> obliterating the individual in favor of a collective entity owning 
>> the code).
>>
>
>
> Thank you very much for this clarification.
> I am just doing the wrong stuff - Thx a lot.
>

No problem ... it's not really all crystal clear and there no guide
through this ;).

>>>
>>> Have you seen William A. Rowe Jr.'s reply on legal-discuss. He 
>>> stated that it
>>> should be included in the LICENSE file.
>>>
>> OK, I read it. I agree that would be the ideal but still that is not 
>> legally
>> consistent.
>>
>> IMHO, it's really a bad idea to bundle GPL stuff in the binary packages.
>>
>
> I more or less can understand this from your point of view.
>
> Our users which want to use our office it is hardly understandable, 
> why certain stuff is not directly available after they have installed 
> the software. I think these kind of users do not care about which 
> open-source license the pieces have they are using.
>

Yes, and to be honest I don't really care about it either.

The real inconsistency is in the guys that licensed the dictionary:
I doubt they will sue anyone, and even if they could we are not
removing OpenSSL to include a dictionary :-P.

cheers,

Pedro.


Mime
View raw message