----- Original Message ----
From: todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com>
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 3:13:15 PM
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache
OpenOffice
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino <pedlino@gmail.com> wrote:
In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under
GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the
same as releasing the modifications you made???
Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I
gave a binary to. That is not the same as "the community making the
software".
I think you missed the "public free Office Suite" bit. In that case
the "people you gave the binary to" is "anyone who wants it", which
would include the developers if they want to use the source code. So
in this case, in practice, having the code as GPL means you must give
the code back to the developers, or rather you must make the code
available for the developers to get for themselves. This is the
situation software suites like IBM's would have fallen under.
Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may
not.
They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those
people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required to
be able to receive it - not necessarily the developer they drew the code from.
Someone could take TDF/LO and make changes and do the same thing - only release
to their paying customers.
And they only have to give the source to one of those paying customers - not
anyone that comes along and asks for it.
Granted, if _one_ of those paying customers asked for the source they would then
have the rights to pass it back to TDF/LO, but you cannot rely on that
happening. Their paying customers are guaranteed that right by the GPL; but
that GPL grants _you_ as the developer nothing other than that.
So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not
necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to
receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically distributed
to. If you are are not someone that received the product distributed by them,
then you have no rights to receive the source - plain & simple.
Ben
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
- Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice (continued)
[tdf-discuss] Copyleft vs. "more permissive" (was: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice) · Friedrich Strohmaier
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Greg Stein
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Simos Xenitellis
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice · Greg Stein
(message not available)
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.