| |||||||||||||
Nah, doesn't sound likelyNah, doesn't sound likelyPosted May 11, 2010 4:04 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868)In reply to: Nah, doesn't sound likely by rahulsundaram Parent article: OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF
I actually thought it was a rather clever idea to not bother with the specifics at the top level. To end users (who the site is geared towards), any Open Source license is essentially equivalent: the software is freely usable for any purpose and the source code is available to help facilitate such use.
The rest of the details are mainly only applicable to those who want to distribute the software (or modified versions of the software) themselves.
(Log in to post comments)
Nah, doesn't sound likely Posted May 11, 2010 7:42 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Pretty much no end user outside the small crowd cares about "open source" either. They care about whether the extension is available for free or not. Open source, Free software and licensing details are for the rest of us.
|
|||||||||||||