| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Even more important: only Cross-platform OSS/FS office suiteEven more important: only Cross-platform OSS/FS office suitePosted Sep 28, 2004 19:02 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216)Parent article: Marketing OpenOffice.org Even more importantly, OpenOffice.org is the only cross-platform open source software / Free Software integrated office suite. KOffice won't run on Windows or Macintosh, and even if it did, it wouldn't be OSS/FS. And I don't think KOffice has the same level of functionality. AbiWord has nowhere near the functionality, and isn't a suite anyway. Gnumeric isn't a suite either, nor does it look like a native application on non-Unix-like systems. Even organizations that want to stop using Windows can't do so instantly; the only sane course in many cases is to switch to an office suite running on Windows, and later switching. For such organizations, OO.o is really the only game in town.
(Log in to post comments)
not the: only Cross-platform OSS/FS office suite Posted Sep 28, 2004 19:12 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] KOffce can run, either natively or in X, on OS X, where it as free as itis on Unix/X11. Don't forget that Qt for OS X is GPL.
Not the only Cross-platform OSS/FS office suite Posted Sep 28, 2004 22:26 UTC (Tue) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] Just because an app uses a non-free library on Windows (I assume you're referring to Qt/Windows in this case) doesn't make the app itself non-free. If it did, OOo wouldn't be free either, since the Windows version links to decidedly non-free Microsoft libraries.
Don't be rediculous Posted Sep 29, 2004 14:51 UTC (Wed) by mark625 (guest, #13741) [Link] Sure OO.o links to Windows libraries, but it doesn't have to distribute them. They are already installed with Windows, and thus do not have to be licensed by OO.o. Qt/Windows is NOT distributed with Windows, and so it would have to be distributed with KOffice for Windows, and would therefore require (non-free) licensing of the Qt/Windows library code.That's exactly why Qt on Windows is not free. That is TrollTech's business plan. See their licensing matrix. Cheers!
Don't be rediculous Posted Sep 30, 2004 6:21 UTC (Thu) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742) [Link] To develop an application with Qt under Windows you need a commerciallicense. Once you have the application, you can distribute the application together with the Qt library (I guess the dll only, or statically linked, but not the lib-file) (at least that's what I remember from reading the licensing terms). So you can develop free software with Qt under Windows and distribute your application together with the Qt library, but you, the developer, have to buy a license to do so. Alex
Don't be rediculous Posted Sep 30, 2004 9:09 UTC (Thu) by rjw (guest, #10415) [Link] But, it isn't free software if the user is unable to modify it - and modify it with no restrictions, including platform ones. If you make software depending on a non-free dependency, eg sun-only java features or Qt/Win32, it isn't really free.
Don't be rediculous Posted Sep 30, 2004 22:26 UTC (Thu) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] At the very right moment you distribute your program with some binarycode (or even source code) that cannot be freely modified and re-distributed it has lost its freedom, so it's not free software anylonger.
|
|
||||||||||||