Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] savannah project dependencies: status of OpenOffice 2.x ?

[Sylvain Beucler]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 11:55:18AM +1000, Douglas Ray wrote:
> Sylvain, ta for the prompt response, and the caveat on Java;  comments 
> below.
>
> Sylvain Beucler wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:50:14PM +1000, Douglas Ray wrote:
>>   
>>> Has GNU/savannah made a ruling on whether OpenOffice 2.x is free 
>>> software, or non-free, for the purpose of savannah candidate-project 
>>> dependencies?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Douglas Ray
>>>     
>>
>> Hmm, well I'd say OOo is free software. We expect, however, that if
>> you use Java-dependent features, it has to work with a free software
>> java suite, such as GCJ+Classpath or IcedTea.
>>
>> The current Debian packages are in the 'free' section, for that matter:
>> http://packages.debian.org/openoffice.org
>>
>> What makes you think we may consider it non-free?
>>
>
> 1) Gary Edwards' ODF article on linuxworld.com.au.
>
> I don't believe his assessment impinges on 'free software' definitions (but 
> you are the experts, there).   I do believe it indicates some manipulation 
> of the 'open source' community.
>
> (As Gary is a founding member of the initial OASIS technical committee, his 
> comments on ODF and OOo are significant.    And all the more so, where he 
> draws on the plenary summary of the EU 21 government "Workshop on Open 
> Document Exchange Formats"... ec.europa.eu,  "ODEF" + "Vriendt" will find 
> the agenda, and the conclusions.)
>
> 2) I'm planning a plug-in that could take a lot of my energy.   I don't 
> want to start off plugging into the wrong project - so I've asked here, 
> first.   If I go with OOo, I want to keep some distance from their current 
> management structure (may be off-topic, in this forum, but I'd be happy to 
> discuss).

When we look at dependencies, we only look at their license. We cannot
judge a project's various kinds of management.

So I cannot give any useful advice here.

Cheers,

-- 
Sylvain