IBM: No plans to contribute to OpenOffice.org
James G. Sack (jim)
jgsack at san.rr.com
Thu Feb 16 21:08:37 PST 2006
Gabriel Sechan wrote:
>> From: "John H. Robinson, IV" <jhriv at ucsd.edu>
>> country (think China) use and modify the software without having to
>> reveal their identify?
>> In the case of *forced* publication of changes, this fails. The LGPL and
>> GPL both pass this test. As long as you do not distribute the resultant
>> binary, you are not forced to disclose any modifications. This is
>> actually A Good Thing.
>> Forced speech is not Free speech.
> But if you're running a public website, you are already not anonymous.
> I don't think this is germane to the issue.
> Personally I think using it to run a service on a public website *shoul*
> equal distribution, but I don't think this is currently the case.
I agree with jhriv (and debian). User has rights to use! Even if
somebody doesn't like (say) how he's using it.
I would even argue that it is not distribution even if the software in
use transmitted components (eg, protocol headers, etc) or other
incidental content in the process of using it for communications.
More information about the KPLUG-List