[Fsf-friends] LibreOffice

[Anivar Aravind]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:22 AM, ck raju <ck.thrissur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If true, LibreOffice would be a nice name, a pretty good hack, a soft
> answer to corporates who think they can control Free Software and a
> fine piece of art at work.

Thanks to Glym moody for That Name
Also take a look at 2 recent posts by him here
<quote>
So what's going on - why the sudden flood of forks? I think this
indicates that we are entering a new phase in open source, and that
the multi-year honeymoon for companies seeking to make money from free
software is over.

Of course, making money from free software is perfectly legitimate, as
Richard Stallman has emphasised many times. But that does not mean
that such companies do not have responsibilities towards the coders
and communities that support them. Moreover, simply abandoning
software projects because they no longer fit into the latest flavour
of corporate strategy is not a good way to win friends in the open
source world. If such projects don't fit with that strategy, the
solution is to help them to become independent, not simply to chuck
them away like old boots.

</quote>
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2010/09/are-we-entering-the-golden-age-of-forks/index.htm

This means that over time, OpenOffice - sorry, LibreOffice  - will
become a patchwork of copyrights, just like the Linux kernel. The
advantage is that no one will have control of the new project; the
disadvantage is that major changes to licensing are very hard to
effect (which is why Linux will probably never shift from using GNU
GPLv2.) The main licence for the new code modules will be dual LGPLv3+
/ MPL.
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2010/09/openofficeorg-discovers-the-joy-of-forking/index.htm

>
> --
> CK Raju
> _______________________________________________
> Fsf-friends mailing list
> Fsf-friends at mm.gnu.org.in
> http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends



--
"[It is not] possible to distinguish between 'numerical' and
'nonnumerical' algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from
other kinds of precise information." - Donald Knuth