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

Re: yum: How to downgrade openoffice 2.3 to 2.2.1?

On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>Craig White wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 12:53 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>> Rahul
>>> In defense of that, it might be enlightening to take a survey and see how
>>> many folks try to use the java tools fedora supplies vs folks that dl and
>>> install their java directly from sun. I'm in the probably 95% column that
>>> did that. And it Just Works(TM).
>Fedora licensing guidelines does not allow software with non-free or
>patent issues and regardless of how many use it or not, Fedora wouldn't
>include it. Btw, the java portions are old news since Fedora 8 includes
>IcedTea, derivative of OpenJDK which is Sun Java under GPL+classpath
>exception. Very few people use the Java related portions really.
>>> That's not saying you (speaking as RH) are wrong, but that is how many
>>> will perceive it, they somehow expecting RH to shoulder the legal
>>> liability for that and which is not at all realistic to ask.  It appears
>>> to us that it is perfectly legal for us to do so however, so we don't
>>> always accept that condescension quietly.
>I am not speaking for anyone but myself anywhere unless explicitly
>stated. It isn't "perfectly legal" to use patent infringing software if
>you are in a region that enforces patents on software.
>>> The only place where I have a personal distaste is that when we do that,
>>> then RH/Fedora seems to want to say that we are the sinners in this
>>> nearly religious perfect adherence to the GPL.  As users, we just want it
>>> to work, and TBT it does.
>I don't see anybody anywhere from Red Hat or Fedora telling you in any
>official capacity what to do with non-free software. I have seen people
>explain many times what they do or what constraints they operate under
>which is entirely different.
>>> Can you imagine the hoorah that would be created if sun (or M$ for that
>>> matter) were to go after each of us JRE downloaders individually?  I
>>> suspect that would ultimately cause the demise of 'the big bad wolf'
>>> regardless of the security pass on the left breast pocket's issuer, and
>>> they damned well know it.  I'd think it would also be laughed out of
>>> court as entrapment because its freely offered for download, fully
>>> customized to run on linux.
>Again, end users can and have been sued for patent infringement before

But those cases are very few and far between considering the "perceived" 
number of violations extant. As predicted, out of the most famous of those, 
the SCO debacle, only the lawyers will actually see any grocery money from 
that.  Neither IBM nor NOVEL will see 1% of whats owed them by the time the 
fat lady sings. SCO is doing their damnedest to burn through whats left in 
spite of the bankruptcy rules.  They are NOT going to go after a Joe & Jill 
Sixpack with $275 in the bank.

>but the exclusion of Sun Java had nothing to do with patents and
>everything to do with copyright licenses which are getting fixed.

So that is the reason Rh bought jboss.  That makes it clearer, but isn't this 
then a fork that will be a nightmare to re-merge when the issues are settled?

Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Virtue would go far if vanity did not keep it company.
		-- La Rochefoucauld

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