Re: LibreOffice on Fedora

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Rahul Sundaram writes:

On 01/27/2011 04:57 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Rahul Sundaram writes:

On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III <[email protected]>
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it.
still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code.
And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?. package in Fedora had a few features removed due to such
issues.  Any new maintainer has to take into consideration the same
problems as well.
Not that it really matters, but just, theoretically speaking, if an
Oracle developer took over, and pushed out a package
with those features reenabled, that would be a pretty good argument
that all of that stuff's patents are now latched.
Depends. I will be careful about making simplistic conclusions.
Microsoft and Sun had a patent license agreement several years back and
Oracle would have one now as part of their acquisition.   Oracle is also
one of the Microsoft partners for the recently formed CPTN patent
holding entity used as a front to buy over 800 patents from Novell so
they might as well as have independent cross licensing agreements. Typically each organization has to evaluate patent risks for themselves.
All of that may very well be true, but isn't really a factor if an Oracle
representative submits a package that says "this package contains GPLed

Attachment: pgpakKUJ3Zf4s.pgp
Description: PGP signature

users mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux