Linked by Tony Steidler-Dennison on Mon 28th Jul 2008 17:32 UTC, submitted by zaboing
Oracle and SUN In an interview with derStandard.at, Novell developer Michael Meeks talks mostly about Sun's lack of openness in regards to OpenOffice.org. He goes as far as stating that if Sun dropped out of OOo-development this "wouldn't be an entirely negative thing". He also goes on to talk about promoting Go-oo instead, and emphasizes the importance of breaking down the barriers between GNOME and KDE.
Thread beginning with comment 324816
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not news
by rjamorim on Mon 28th Jul 2008 19:30 UTC in reply to "Not news"
rjamorim
Member since:
2005-12-05

Sun requires contributors to transfer their copyright to them if you want to get your code merged in the official openoffice.org project (just like in opensolaris and java, BTW). And then, because they have copyright rights, they're allowed to add closed-source "addons" and sell it in a propietary way. Which is exactly what Sun does.

[...]

Openoffice, opensolaris and java will improve so much the day sun kills the copyright asssignment, or the day other contributors join to completely fork the code and try to make sun-controled projects irrelevant.


Well, what do you know... Novell also requires copyright assignment if you want your patch accepted into Evolution or Mono:
http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/patch.shtml
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Why_does_Novell_require_...

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Not news
by alexandru_lz on Mon 28th Jul 2008 19:54 in reply to "RE: Not news"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

Well, yes, but apparenly, they do it for Everyone's Good while Sun is just ripping people off.

I call bullshiFt on this, really. I'm sure that if a Sun developer had been interviewed about Go-OO, he'd have said the same thing, only reversed (Novell is not open enough with Go=OO, bring us all your codez).

Business is still business, even if you're selling open-source work, and this is the best proof.


Edit: I can already see Balmer's argument. Why switch to open office, when these guys can't even decide which one is really open, and take their time to fight each other instead of actually writing some code? Frankly, I'd really buythat argument.

Edited 2008-07-28 19:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not news
by Amaranth on Mon 28th Jul 2008 21:36 in reply to "RE: Not news"
Amaranth Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, what do you know... Novell also requires copyright assignment if you want your patch accepted into Evolution or Mono:
http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/patch.shtml
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Why_does_Novell_require_...

Actually Evolution no longer has this requirement. It's a recent announcement, the website has yet to be updated.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Not news
by miguel on Mon 28th Jul 2008 22:37 in reply to "RE: Not news"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

[redundant post]

Edited 2008-07-28 22:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Not news
by aent on Tue 29th Jul 2008 01:17 in reply to "RE: Not news"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

Actually, evolution stopped requiring copyright assignment a few weeks ago. Not sure about mono

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Not news
by calc on Fri 1st Aug 2008 00:03 in reply to "RE: Not news"
calc Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, what do you know... Novell also requires copyright assignment if you want your patch accepted into Evolution or Mono:
http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/patch.shtml
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Why_does_Novell_require_...


Wow it was hard to find that out, huh? What with him covering that in detail in the article...

Reply Parent Score: 1