Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenOffice.Org Now Under LGPLv3

Posted by kdawson on from the not-just-lip-service dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Sun has moved OpenOffice.org to the LGPLv3 license. In his blog Sun's Simon Phipps cites worry over software patents as being one of their main reasons for this move: 'Upgrading to the LGPLv3 brings important new protections to the OpenOffice.org community, most notably through the new language concerning software patents. You may know that I am personally an opponent of software patents, and that Sun has already taken steps in this area with a patent non-assert covenant for ODF. But the most important protection for developers comes from creating mutual patent grants between developers. LGPLv3 does this.'"

6 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Software by aerthling · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't patents apply to the method and copyright to the implementation?

  2. Re:Ah, the LGPL, the "sane" GPL by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because it takes as payment the entire work of someone who relies on the supposedly "free" software.

    The LGPL only requires such payment if changes are made directly to the LGPL'd work itself.

  3. Re:Software by skoch · · Score: 2, Informative

    > Software is the only thing you can have both a patent AND a copyright on.

    This is not true, Mechanical components have patents on the idea, and copyrights on the drawings of the machine that implement the idea. Software is the same way, patents on the idea, but copyrights on the source code and executables.

    That does not make software patents a good idea however.

  4. Re:Ah, the LGPL, the "sane" GPL by kdemetter · · Score: 2, Informative

    It depends on how you look at it :

    In GPL , anything that is derived from that code , must also be published under GPL .
    So all code use must be GPL .

    Lesser GPL changes this , in that it allows the LGPL'ed software to be linked with non GPL'ed software ( ie it can use non gpl libraries)

    This means that , if OpenOffice remains pure PGL , then there's a problem if someone wants to extends OpenOffice with properietary libraries . This problem doesn't present itself with LPGL.

    Off course , there's a danger that the proprietary code becomes a main part of the application , making it basically a proprietary application.

    --
    Slipping shoelaces ?
  5. About that patent non-assert covenant by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Informative

    That patent non-assert covenant is almost identical (and the differences are in the parts that aren't important) to Microsoft's patent no- assert covenant for its XML formats. Many have said that the latter is unacceptable for use with free software. It's also interesting to compare those two non-assert covenants against the one IBM provides for their patents that cover OpenOffice, and for Microsoft's OSP. I've made a little page that lists all four of these non-assertion covenants, side-by-side, with corresponding sections highlighted in matching colors.

    1. Re:About that patent non-assert covenant by WebMink · · Score: 5, Informative

      That patent non-assert covenant is almost identical ... to Microsoft's patent no- assert covenant

      That's because Microsoft based their document on Sun's. I know that because the author of the Sun covenant is a colleague, because it was released at least a year before Microsoft copied it and because, after I pointed this out, Microsoft credited Sun for the original document.

      (and the differences are in the parts that aren't important)

      I disagree, and I have explained why before on my blog. Sun's covenant is intended to empower open source developers, and Microsoft has altered the parts that make that happen. Most notably, Sun's covenant grants all patents, Microsoft's is limited to "necessary claims". That is a very major difference since it means open source developers cannot be sure they have actually been given cover by Microsoft's covenant whereas they can be certain they have by Sun's. It is deeply regerttable that Microsoft added essential claims language in this way. For those who don't follow links, I also find the conformance requirements and the patent peace asymmetry poor in Microsoft's document.

      Many have said that the latter is unacceptable for use with free software.

      Indeed, and I am among them. However, your implication that the same applies to Sun's covenant is incorrect.