linuxmaillists@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Monday 09 April 2007, Ed Greshko wrote: >> linuxmaillists@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> On Monday 09 April 2007, Ed Greshko wrote: >>>> linuxmaillists@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> On Monday 09 April 2007, Matthew Miller wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:46:25PM -0400, >>>>> linuxmaillists@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>>>> No it has something to do with the function not >>>>>>> being open source or something like that. It was on >>>>>>> another mailing >>>>>> That's not "stripped", that's "can't legally >>>>>> include". >>>>> It is stripped because it was there from the source. >>>>> Can't legally include is just their opinion. >>>> Please point me to the source on the OpenOffice >>>> website. I can't seem to find it. >>>> >>>>> The cool thing is I can override their opinion and >>>>> put it back the way the developers provided it for >>>>> all to use as we decide too. >>> The OpenOffice.org package on the web site will do >>> things that can't be done in the Fedora version. Even >>> as early as the 1.0.3 version (I have a copy on Knoppix >>> 3.3 live CD) from the OOo site had this function in it. >> You didn't answer the question. What you are saying is >> not in dispute. > > I have not been talking about this from a legal view point > only from a user view point. There is functionality in the > original OOo package from the OOo website that is missing > in the Fedora version. I also have described the missing > functionality that I know about twice in this thread. Oh, so there is no issue. All you are simply saying is that the binary rpms from OpenOffice have some functionalities not included in the Fedora rpms. So, you're not complaining, simply stating a fact. FWIW, all distributors and users need to work within a legal framework even if that legal framework is the aboriginal tribal elders of the Australian outback. :-)
