Open Office is free; Star Office is not. Star Office 6 Beta is available under the Sun Binary Software Evaluation Agreement which is certainly not a free software license.
After actually looking at the sources it seems as though they are _not_ violating the GPL.
The MO6 distribution comes with a few scripts, a man page, a tar of user programs (user.tar) and the kernel stuff (kernel.tar).
The user programs contain a bunch of files and it seems as though they are all covered by either the GPL or LGPL.
The kernel stuff contains a few binary files (which I assume are the modules) and a whole bunch of source files. All files bearing the "The Hebrew University of Jerusalem" copyright are clearly labeled as GPL. The rest of the files appear to be modified files from the kernel distribution and it seems as though no copyright info has been changed in any of them. Taking a few samples show that the kernel files from MO6 bear the same copyright info as the corresponding files in linux-2.2.0-pre7 (which I happened to have on my hard drive).
I have not looked at every line of every file in the MO6 distribution, but it does seem as though they are well aware of the GPL and the linux kernel and therefore I assume that MO6 is OK.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Office is free; Star Office is not. Star Office 6 Beta is available under the Sun Binary Software Evaluation Agreement which is certainly not a free software license.
You don't have to license anything to build a JVM
or a Java compiler or a J2EE server or servlet
container or EJB container or Jwhathaveyou.
There is an open spec. Now run along and implement.
So, I take it you're waiting for the Java spec
to be an official ISO standard before you write
your fantastic, free implementation of it?
Everyone but Debian have conveniently ignored that
it was illegal for them to distribute KDE.
Yes.
(RTFM)
Close. It's because there are too few users, which in turn is probably due to price.
SGI has had hardware accelerated OpenGL for ages. Why aren't there any games for Irix?
After actually looking at the sources it seems as though they are _not_ violating the GPL.
The MO6 distribution comes with a few scripts, a man page, a tar of user programs (user.tar) and the kernel stuff (kernel.tar).
The user programs contain a bunch of files and it seems as though they are all covered by either the GPL or LGPL.
The kernel stuff contains a few binary files (which I assume are the modules) and a whole bunch of source files. All files bearing the "The Hebrew University of Jerusalem" copyright are clearly labeled as GPL. The rest of the files appear to be modified files from the kernel distribution and it seems as though no copyright info has been changed in any of them. Taking a few samples show that the kernel files from MO6 bear the same copyright info as the corresponding files in linux-2.2.0-pre7 (which I happened to have on my hard drive).
I have not looked at every line of every file in the MO6 distribution, but it does seem as though they are well aware of the GPL and the linux kernel and therefore I assume that MO6 is OK.