Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store - or else ?

Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> On 2/23/11 12:25 AM, Valter Mura wrote:
> > In data giovedì 13 gennaio 2011 22:53:59, Fabián Rodríguez ha scritto:
> >
> > > 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<eagles051387@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > >   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
> > > > > an OK
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Larry
> > > Hi Larry,
> > >
> > > DRM means "Digital Rights Management" and although it (apparently) has
> > > been easily circumvented in the App store, there are indeed such 
> > > control
> > > mechanisms implemented:
> > > http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1075297
> > >
> > > A quick search shows confusing information about this (again):
> > > http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/poetic-justice-watch-crackulous-r 
> > >
> > > eleased-pirated-re-sold.ars
> > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20027731-264.html
> > >
> > > "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:
> > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
> > >
> > > 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 ?
> > Should it be possible to have a light Libò version for BlackBerry? 
> > This kind
> > of mobile phone is used by the majority of businessmen, I suppose it 
> > should be
> > useful to have it inside the phone.
> >
> > What do you think?
> The biggest problem with getting on mobile devices, is that they use 
> java. from my impressions on the project as a whole and following the 
> dev list is that they are trying to remove java all together. It would 
> be interesting to get some developer feedback on this.
Maybe I don't understand this, but it seems to me that mobile devices 
are so different from regular PCs that any version of LO for mobile 
devices might just as well be written from scratch for that purpose 
borrowing little or no code from from the regular LO for PCs.  That 
being the case, one might use Java, and the other not. 

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***