On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 06:53:36PM -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
> >>Do you have a reference on that? I can't find anything about a license
> >>for ODF. Are you sure you aren't thinking of a specific program that
> >>implements ODF?
> >
> >Well, I just jumped out to the OpenOffice website, and noted that they
> >use the LGPL. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that that also covers their
> >specification. Perhaps it doesn't.
>
> Right. I don't think it applies to standards in the same way but I am no
> expert. I do think your idea about standards is solid though -- if you
> want to promote a standard, license software implementing that standard
> under BSDL instead of GPL. You don't care about being involved in further
> development; you just want the standard to be used. So I agree with that
> idea, at least if there may be strong interest from commercial developers
> (otherwise the GPL might still do better because of its "viral property").
It depends; remember that Microsoft appropriated all of the Kerberos
protocol (thus using the work that went into design and testing) but
added an incompatible twist that was proprietary. Depending on your
opinions, that might or might not be a good thing.
florin
--
Bruce Schneier expects the Spanish Inquisition.
http://geekz.co.uk/schneierfacts/fact/163
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20070227/8510d0bb/attachment.pgp