Re: [seul-edu] Re: ISO project--a different approach

[Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>]

Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:11:44AM -0500, Kyle Hutson wrote:
> > Why not? Doesn't it essentially use the Mozilla license with
> > s/Netscape/Sun/ ?
> 
> Hm, it is not as bad as I thought.  First off, I was reading old BTS
> information.  There is a newer bug# that says it has been packaged for
> unstable, so the outstanding ITPs are no longer relevant.
> 
>         See http://bugs.debian.org/101762
> 
> It is not Openoffice itself that has licensing problems, it is the Sun Java
> that it currently depends upon in order to build (there is no runtime
> dependency on non-free Java for the binary package, however).
> 
> Thus, Openoffice will appear shortly in contrib[0].  (It is delayed somewhat
> because the initial upload to unstable/contrib was rejected due to some
> problems with missing build dependencies in the packaging, but
> conservatively it should make it in over the next month.)
> 
> The debian-openoffice team is working towards getting Openoffice to build
> with a free Java implementation so it will go into main.  This will take
> longer.

When I spoke with the Debian Project Leader a couple weeks ago,
he mentioned that he didn't want to see OpenOffice or any other
new C++ app that was heavy on shared libraries get into 
stable until stable was switched over to an ABI-compliant c++ compiler
and library.  For what it's worth.  Those who want OpenOffice in the
meantime will just grab it from unstable.  (Heck, I grabbed it from
the initial submitter's site months ago...)
- Dan