Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 15:18 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868)
In reply to: Nah, doesn't sound likely by tzafrir
Parent article: OpenOffice.org's Community Council responds to the FSF

Yes.

On the extensions site:
http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/

Every extension lists the license category (Opensource/Freeware/Shareware/Commercial).

And you can trivially filter by that category, too.
Click "By License" on the left, select "Is one of" "Opensource", and then Submit.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 15:26 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

The metadata should include the precise license and not just a declaration of "open source". Some of the OSI approved licenses such as the first version of artistic license are problematic and are effectively considered non-free.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 11, 2010 4:04 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (1 responses)

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.

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.

Nah, doesn't sound likely

Posted May 10, 2010 15:27 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Which is great for us freedom nerds, but says nothing meaningful to the general public.