| |||||||||||||
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free softwareMark Shuttleworth on companies and free softwarePosted May 17, 2011 18:12 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)Parent article: Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software My understanding is that the largest group (or, at least, a large group) of OpenOffice.org developers who weren't willing to assign changes to Sun (and later Oracle) were motivated not so much for "fundamentalist" reasons as for business reasons: they worked for Novell, and Novell didn't want to sign a one-sided agreement. Hence the Novell fork of OO.o.
(Log in to post comments)
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 18:20 UTC (Tue) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]
Mmm-hmmm. Interesting that Mark glosses that over. He knows better.
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 17, 2011 21:51 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
And because NIHism within Sun (see for example the gstreamer stuff that got worked into go-oo and then, months (years?) later got independently redone inside Sun).
And obscenely difficult patch acceptance requirements iirc.
mmeeks has a number of very informative articles on the subject from the last year or two (http://people.gnome.org/~michael/)
Mark Shuttleworth on companies and free software Posted May 27, 2011 6:49 UTC (Fri) by AdamW (guest, #48457) [Link]
well, it wasn't just Novell. OO.o contributors from various other organizations had the same perception, and were very happy to jump on the LO bandwagon.
|
|||||||||||||