Where’s the fork?

I was alarmed by a slashdot posting saying "Sun Refuses LGPL for OpenOffice; Novell forks." The blog and the OpenOffice forum have some discussion of which open source licenses are compatible with which other open source licenses, and what this means for whether modules are part of the base distribution or are external plug-ins. Myself, I don’t care. I just want it to work. And it works well enough that I’ve never bothered to open a couple of Microsoft Office CD’s I got with new PC’s.

But where’s that fork? The forum exchange doesn’t seem to support the idea there was a big argument over LGPL:

  • kohei: it would be great if someone could check with Sun legal if it’s possible to keep this code LGPL only.
  • st: Kohei, we would be happy to help you with the integration of your contribution in the main code base following the project guidelines. This implies shared ownership and licensing under LGPL.

The OpenOffice FAQ lists LGPL first among open source licenses used. So what’s this about Sun refusing to use the LGPL? Could the real issue be that some people are upset that OpenOffice retired the Sun Industry Standard Source License (SISSL)?






Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: