Re: GNOME Office and OpenOffice (fwd)
- From: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik ireland sun com>
- To: rms greymalkin yi org
- Cc: gnome-office-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GNOME Office and OpenOffice (fwd)
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:43:59 +0000 (GMT)
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 rms greymalkin yi org wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:00:47AM +0000, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > 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.
> Yes, but I thought the meaning of your phrase was: why shouldn't (the
> contributors) dual license their code?
Contributors to what?
> If it's the original OO code, yes, I also agree Sun has the right to
> release it in whatever license it wants.
> > > 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.
> ok, so there is no need for AbiWord contributors to dual license,
> since their portions of code can be used in GPL alone?
Yes. Or no, if they want their code in OO, in which case the code needs to
be dual licenced as LGPL 2.1 & SISSL.
> hugs, rms
OpenOffice Release Engineering / Dublin
] [Thread Prev