[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:25:25 +0000 Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nothing in the announcement says they are forking OpenOffice, merely > they are developing plugins for it under an open source licence (which > would be interesting). open source maybe, we'll have to wait and see if it's free software. Something makes me doubt it but I would like to be proved wrong. If the result of the Microvell deal is that the concept of "open source" dies at the sacrificial sword to preserve free software, I'm willing to accept that. :-) I think the deal will finally put an end to claims that "open source" has any merit as a means of enhancing the freedom of the source code. "Open Source" could end up no more than a synonym for "Read-Only", losing all rights to modify the content in a morass of patent claims and counter-claims. JMRI is a sad testament to this possibility. If you want freedom of source code, free software is the only practical method. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpDat64dTvfm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html