Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Sep 2005 13:31 UTC, submitted by DittoBox
On 2nd September 2005 Sun announced the retirement of the Sun Industry Standard Source License. As a consequence, no future Sun open-source project will use the SISSL. Projects currently using the SISSL under a dual-license scheme, such as OpenOffice.org, are dropping the SISSL and thus simplifying their license scheme as soon as the development cycle allows. Effectie with the announcement that Sun is retiring the SISSL, OpenOffice.org will in the future only be licensed under the LGPL (.pdf). A FAQ is also available.
Thread beginning with comment 27768
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: The way I see it
by John Nilsson on Wed 7th Sep 2005 04:37
in reply to "RE[5]: The way I see it"
Member since:2005-07-06
It was stated earlier in this thread that SUN requires copyright to be assigned to them from all contributors.
If this is not true, then I stand correected.
While SUN can't revoke a license allready granted they aren't forced to follow it themsleves as long as they are the owners of the code.
A license is nothing more then legal protection for doing something that would otherwise be copyright infrigenment, if you don't need protection you don't need a license.
Member since:
If they now "license" the code to them selves. You can't really call it a license since they aren't legally bound to the terms of license.
Yes, they are.
1. They can't take back what they release under the licence.
2. They do not have copyright over everything in OpenOffice.org since they did not write everything in OpenOffice.org!
It sounds more like a public contract to mee.
Legally enforceable and binding. It states how the code can be distributed outside of default copyright law (which is you can't distribute it at all as you are not the copyright holder).