Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
>> A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd
>> still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
> I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code.
> And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including OO.o in the past?.
Openoffice.org package in Fedora had a few features removed due to such
issues. Any new maintainer has to take into consideration the same
problems as well.
Not that it really matters, but just, theoretically speaking, if an Oracle
developer took over
openoffice.org, and pushed out a package with those
features reenabled, that would be a pretty good argument that all of that
stuff's patents are now latched.