Re: GNOME Office and OpenOffice (fwd)

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik ireland sun com>]

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
code.

> 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.
> 
> 

	Sander

OpenOffice Release Engineering / Dublin