Re: GNOME Office and OpenOffice (fwd)

On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 rms greymalkin yi org wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:54:15PM +0000, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > Why should the code not be dual licenced?
> Better yet, Why should it be dual licensed?

Just for the record - I was talking about OO code. How Sun licences it's
code is up to Sun. I have no word in this. I just happen to like the
present setup. Nothing Sun could possibly do would affect how the code out
there is available.

> How exactly is GPL not enough, and how exactly would having my code in
> Dual License benefit me in ways that the GPL does not?

If OO is dual licenced, it is pretty clear that whoever made that decision
considered licencing it solely under (L)GPL to be not sufficent. 

What you do with your code is your business. I find it extremely bad
manners going around telling other people how they should licence their

> Why can't "parts of this software" (that meaning what I wrote in GPL
> alone) "can only be distributed under the GPL"? After all, I CAN
> include the license in any code, and it's THAT code that is GPL.

No reason. It's yours. Do with it whatever you want.

> Please, be convincent.


OpenOffice Release Engineering / Dublin

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]