On 11-01-12 11:35 AM, Larry Gusaas wrote:
On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM Mirek M. wrote:
2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilina<firstname.lastname@example.org>
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would allow
us to put
it in the app store? would that mean we would need to remove the
GPL or can
it be dual licensed to go on the app store?
I'm no expert, but as I understand it, LibreOffice is licensed under the
LGPL, which should allow it to be used with DRM (whereas VLC was GPL).
In order for LibreOffice to change its license, it would need to get
from all its contributors, including Oracle, which is not too likely to
happen IMHO. But I don't think that's necessary in this case.
There is no DRM used on the Mac OS X App Store. There is DRM on the
Apple iOS AppStore. They are two separate entities. The FSF objections
are to the DRM on the iOS AppStore and do not apply to the OS X App
Store. Of course, the FSF objects to Apple and any other company that
does not give away their software for free.
DRM means "Digital Rights Management" and although it (apparently) has
been easily circumvented in the App store, there are indeed such control
A quick search shows confusing information about this (again):
"Free" in "Free software" refers to Freedom, not free as in $0 cost.
It's a common mistake, but the Free Software Foundation is not objecting
to anyone selling Free software. Quite the opposite, in fact, except the
software itself is not considering the only goods you would be
monetizing. This article should help understanding such model:
Larry, knowing that you are the audience we seek, I'd like to know how
you found out about OOo (or Libreoffice, if you didn't know OOo before).
Perhaps that can provide other ways to better reach Mac audiences ?