Sun Refuses LGPL for OpenOffice; Novell forks 258
TRS-80 writes "Kohei Yoshida wrote a long post on the history of Calc Solver, an optimization solver module for the Calc component of OpenOffice.org. After three years of jumping through Sun's hoops on his own time, Sun says it will duplicate the work because Kohei doesn't want to sign over ownership of the code. Adding insult to injury, Sun then invites him join this duplication. Because of Sun's refusal to accept LPGL extensions in the upstream code, Michael Meeks (who recently talked about Sun's OO.o community failings, and ODF and OOXML) has announced ooo-build (previously just for build fixes) is now a formal fork of OpenOffice to be located at http://go-oo.org/. "
And we think EULA's are bad (Score:2, Insightful)
It's kind of sad.
Blame the big corporations?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And we think EULA's are bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but in the OSS world we still have access to all the software that's in dispute...
Re:And we think EULA's are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And we think EULA's are bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus say your right. What's worse? Companies that are constantly trying to force you into licenses that are restrictive and downright abusive/harmful to you or your computer? Or individuals who are constantly fighting to ensure that you/society only benefit from the software license?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of sad.
Blame the big corporations?
License squabbling happens when a project grows, and there are far more interests involved than you can imagine.
It's got nothing to do with OSS vs. commercial software.
The alternative is Sun and Novell forming their private militia and sending hitmen to hit their competitors. In a country with a developed legal system, we rather slap each other with licenses.
Nothing's per
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the terms of ownership are pretty weak under GPLv2, so what precise good would it do Sun and IBM?
I just love these near-psychiatric paranoid delusions som
When will people learn? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When will people learn? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up kid!
Re:When will people learn? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:When will people learn? (Score:5, Interesting)
They really need a goal like this [launchpad.net].
Re: (Score:2)
I always get a kick out of posts which start going into details of what they want company X to do, as if they're around and care what you say.
Remember the Novell Vice President: "If you care what I say, you have no girlfriend".
I suspect he believes this goes both ways, and wouldn't risk losing his girlfriend, so...
Re: (Score:2)
> "Miguel de Icaza, founder of ... Mono"
Not exactly a great recommendation, considering how hard it sucks to have Mono (both the disease and the programming language).
The guy shouldn't have to assign copyright. As long as he's LGPL'ed the code, what's the big deal? And this applies equally to the license nazis at the FSF who insist that code be assigned to them, rather than just licensed under the GPL or LGPL. Control freaks is what it sounds like.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:When will people learn? (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is a Legal dispute over the code, we would have to round up EVERYBODY that contributed to the codebase. They would ALL have to travel to Boise, IDAHO, or some place in Egypt, or Australia, or where ever the dispute is filed. Once their, they would EACH have to give a dissertation on what they contributed. If even one person doesn't show up, then you would lose, much like if a football team showed up with not enough players.
How many legal disputes would it take to make sure a person NEVER contributes again?
The GPL and LGPL are licenses, that allow a whole lot of different things to happen, but they are still LEGAL licenses that if you really want people to abide by them, you will have to be able to defend in court.
I am not a lawyer, but I have been the Documentation Lead on the OOo project for the past 6+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
No! One missing person does not mean you lose! (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said. I still
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer,
That's painfully obvious.
I am glad it is. ;-)
but I have been the Documentation Lead on the OOo project
Oh, and that qualifies you to make legal pronouncements, does it? I don't think so.
In that, I have had to talk about why this is the case for years.
If there is a Legal dispute over the code, we would have to round up EVERYBODY that contributed to the codebase.
Um, no. Where did you get that whacko idea? Oh, right, when everyone who ever contributed code to Linux had to show up in Utah to defend Linux from SCO. Oh, wait...
Are you talking about the SCO case? Were you paying attention? They NEVER showed what code they said had been infringed. EVER... Once they had showed what areas, they said infringed, then there would have been a discovery to see who actually submitted the code. The person that submitted the code of each of the various sections, if not IBM, would have then had to show up in court where the case was filed. Otherwise,
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.gpl-violations.org/news/20061110-dlink-judgement_frankfurt_en.html [gpl-violations.org]
The same would happen for any other large project where copyright isn't assigned to a single entity. It doesn't mean that you can't enforce / protect the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suspect he believes this goes both ways,
hawk
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm it wasn't long ago I heard praises of OO since while Office 2007 changed its UI dramatically to deal with control bloat, OO kept the 2003-style interface. I mean you do realize: Open Office literally has the Office pre-2007 UI, in fact OO has less controls and toolbars than Office 2003 did.
I'm seeing more and more opinions in the other direction, which means the tide is turning.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think the GP is just a Mac person (or hasn't used OOo since the 1.x days). AFAIK the interface for MS Office on the Mac is non-trivially different in comparison to the Windows version, and the GP is pining for the Mac version's interface in OOo. Also, the GP complains about a lack of integration (using the system icons, fonts, etc), which is a non-issue if you're using KDE or Gnome (at least, maybe Windows too, I don't know) as OOo will already use a set of appropriate icons, use the correct file open
Re:When will people learn? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... right.. no problems at all, it all just works!
Btw, iCal for surfing the web? I guess you can export your calendar as HTML but
Anyway would be intresting to hear why Apple doesn't use ODF for iWork 08.
With apologies (Score:5, Funny)
They told him, we don't your code around here
Don't wanna see your source, make it disappear
The license they don't like, and they made that clear
So fork it, Just fork it.
You better take your code, better do what you can
Don't wanna see it die, 'cause Sun wanna be da man!
You wanna own your code, better do what you can
So fork it, but you don't wanna be mad
Just fork it, fork it, fork it, fork it
No wants this to get too heated
Show 'em the way to free code that's right
It doesn't matter how the code comes to light
Just fork it, Fork it
Just fork it, Fork it
Just fork it, Fork it
Just fork it, Fork it
They won't take your code, best to leave while you can
Don't wanna fight with Sun, you wanna be da man
You wau wanna keep the code alive, just do what you can
So fork it, Just fork it,
Not an official "Fork" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not an official "Fork" (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/184 [tuxdeluxe.org]
Not 100% sure though (the easiest way to find out if you are using the ooo-build version or the "official" version is to see if the "greyed out" icons are just not displayed ("official version") or are actually "greyed out" (ooo-build version). Also the oo-build version does have a zoom drop-down on the task bar.
Welcome back, ooo-ximian! (Score:2)
As long as they don't get "exclusive" features that are only in one version and not the other, this probably won't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why demand signed-over ownership? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why demand signed-over ownership? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess you're right: both Sun and the FSF request copyright assignment because they want the flexibility of re-licensing the code later on, without contacting the multitude of authors who have contributed to the code-base.
However there is a notable difference between the FSF and Sun. The FSF has a plainly-stated goal that they want to promote free software. Thus if you agree with their vision of what "free software"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whilst they can relicense, they cannot apply it retroactively.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Note that Sun requires joint copyright assignment (JCA), whereby both the original author(s) and Sun jointly hold copyright. This allows Sun to relicense the OpenOffice.org code as needed (e.g., GPLv3).
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing: that isn't even necessary! The whole point of the LGPL is that they could use it in StarOffice without having to make the whole of StarOffice open source! This is why Sun's position is so unreasonable.
IBM Seems to Be Forking Too (Score:5, Informative)
What was the story I submitted tagged as? 'fudfudfud'
I wonder how many forks we'll see? I also wonder if anyone's going to actually make this real open source or if each company is going to fork their own copy and call all the shots on it? I hope someone learns that to be the OpenOffice you have to be open to community ideas, wants & needs as well as truly governed by the community.
Re: (Score:2)
Kudos to Sun for buying it in the first place and releasing it for free.
Less so for the others...
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, as long as one of the forked versions is released under the GPL (you can re-licence LGPL code to "full" GPL, but not the other way around) then there is no reason for version proliferation to happen. Even GPL v2/3 compatibility issues will sort themselves out in time. It will be legal to take LGPL cod
Isnt this pointless?? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they'll just quietly patent everything
Re: (Score:2)
Let that be a lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
If you keep acting as if you never did it, you'll wake up one day with the entire project forked by a competing company.
Re: (Score:2)
That really doesn't matter. People will use the program that suits them most. Forked or not.
It's like having kids. You splice your DNA to your partner's DNA, and who knows what you end up with. Some will be decent people, others will be downright brats. Society as a whole will take care of deciding which "version" is worthy of success. Just because one of your kids turns out to be a brat
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but if it wouldn't be forked, they'd be forced to use your own single version.
And as businesses are involved in making money, that's certainly the better alternative vs forking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that the whole POINT of software is to specialize. I'd rather see many forks of smaller, specialized, GOOD apps than the "One App to Rule Them All" approach. So long as we keep
go-oo.org? (Score:3, Funny)
Why get upset? (Score:3, Insightful)
Coding is commodity (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if you'd gotten money from Sun for your code. Would you care (as much) if they ignored the code? They'd have the right by having purchased it. But having spent money on it, they'd probably be less likely to discard it, and to start from scratch. Money makes a difference.
Jeez, this post is the typical complaint seen in charity work: "Oh, they didn't value my work, and I have no sense of self-worth, so now I'm all upset!" "The people running the charity are all in a clique and don't pay attention to the contributions of the other charity workers. They're destroying the spirit of the organization. Lets go create another organization that cares!" And then the cycle continues. The basic mistake is in thinking that other people have to value your work. They don't. Only you do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very good analogy, actually.
No, nobody pays you to look after your own kids. OTOH, people do get paid all of the time doing the work (i.e. for looking out for someone else's kids.) Still others do it voluntarily, be it in an orphanage, family situation, or just friends.
They get paid by others for the work they do (i.e. producing c
Hmm (Score:2)
Luckily my own experiences with contributing to the OpenJDK have been much better. Hopefully the experiences Sun learned in open sourcing Java can be applied to improving the Open Office project.
'Formal Fork' ? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
While Sun were the primary developers of OOo, and few people were coming on board, it doesn't make sense to try and work outside of their framework for anything non-trivial. At some point, Sun will be much less important, and (more importantly) much less efficient with their current processes - other people could decide to stop bo
What will the fork accomplish in real terms? (Score:5, Insightful)
1: The "non-starter" speed. Even with the quickstarter, OpenOffice.org does not start that fast enough for me.
2: Absence of a full email client. I suggest they grab Mozilla's Thunderbird. I have no trouble with it at all.
3: Beauty. Heck, the [ugly and huge] icons on Linux can be made better looking.
4: Make its database offering comparable to Microsoft's Access. Right now, a lot of work has to be done.
Those are my US$0.02.
Did you know the the Canadian Dollar is now worth more than the US dollar? I just found out this morning!
Re: (Score:2)
From go-oo.org/discover: "Go-oo starts faster"
One of the major projects that Novell's team has been doing is improving OOo's look and feel. This includes better GTK+ widget theme integration, icon-theme integration, use of native
Re: (Score:2)
2: Absence of a full email client. I suggest they grab Mozilla's Thunderbird. I have no trouble with it at all.
I'm not sure why an e-mail client has to be integrated into the office suite. In fact, I'm not sure why we have to have our slideshow program integrated with our word processor.
However, among the free e-mail clients, it seems to me that Evolution is the most complete replacement for Outlook. And Evolution is already a Novell program. If only they'd get Windows/OSX ports built.
Unfortunate but defensible, and maybe a solution (Score:2)
nt part of
There are some facts, Sun is a business and as such they have to make sure their business is viable. The solver is an important part, and since sun does use OpenOffice.org as the basis of StarOffice, they will want to make sure they are in proper legal standing to do so. If they make mods to the module, then all their mods must be published and there may be instances where this is not som
The power of Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
FSF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The FSF is a non-profit organization with a final motive of keeping software free.
That said, it has been argued that Sun are nice guys regarding open-source today, but you never know how they'll act tomorrow (if SCO taught us anything).
FSF assignment guarantees code remains libre (Score:3, Informative)
How is Sun's policy any different than the FSF's policy for GNU projects they manage?
I'm curious about this myself. When I assigned some of my copyrights to the FSF I got a contract that says amongst other things that even though the FSF holds the copyright, they won't use all of their rights to the code, by guaranteeing that they will only distribute it under the terms of free software licenses (this is defined in some way, I could look the specifics up if anybody is interested).
If Sun doesn't have a clause like this, I don't see why anybody, especially any commercial entity would ever s
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:2)
As the homepage of the fork prominently states "Your OpenOffice.org" I have a few questions:
1) Is it ethical to use the name or domain name of the forked software? ("Your Mozilla.org" anyone?)
2) Is it not a trademark infringement? Note: even unregistered trademarks are protected to a certain extent (at least under US trademark law).
3) Is it not unfair business practices?
What people don't realize is that copyright licenses (e.g. GPL) cover only the softweare. Names and brands are not "copy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is wrong but forking may not be... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also probably time for an OO fork. Forking is not evil or bad, forking is powerful and must be used with caution but it is the ultimate power the community has. I'm not especially surprised that Sun spent all that time previously talking about the evils of forks, it is only fitting since Sun intends to control anything they contribute with an iron fist. The project is stagnant, not because people don't contribute but because Sun doesn't accept changes or only wants certain features in StarOffice.
There should probably be a fork if we want to see something useful arise from OO but it shouldn't be run by Novell or Sun or IBM or any other corporation. A fork should be run by the community, for the community. A community run foundation or non-profit should be at its head with a no sale of the codebase clause in its charter. If Novell wants to donate the bandwidth then so be it.
"Compare to the ingredients in" forks. (Score:2)
When forking something that's trademarked, you could do what Longs and Walgreens do. Their copies of out-of-patent medications are labelled with "compare to the ingredients in <proprietary name>". So something like "BetterOffice - compare to the components in OpenOffice" would probably work.
The FSF reasons for signing over ownership (Score:3, Interesting)
1) It is (legally) easier defend the license if ownership is clearly defined (and before you comment: The law is rarely Boolean).
2) To make it possible to re-release under different licenses.
The GPL2 to GPL3 is a poor example of #2 as they usually add a "any later version" for their GPL'ed source. But ownership gives them the right to give permission for other free software projects to use FSF code in projects that use other licenses, they are quite pragmatic with regard to such licenses.
Both should paply to Sun as well, plus the added ability to make proprietary versions (like StarOffice) which may link to other peoples non-LGPL compatible code.
ooo-build has long been more than build fixes (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am a founder of the NeoOffice [neooffice.org] project.
ooo-build has long been much more than build fixes. For many years it has been the public face of the work Ximian and Novell have poured into the OpenOffice.org source base. It has a long history of features that Ximian/Novell have helped develop, including (but not limited to):
ooo-build is about functionality and features. Despite the name, it has never been about "build fixes" as indicated in the article. The additional functionality is so awesome that, at NeoOffice, we have been using ooo-build in NeoOffice [neooffice.org] since March and have been donating back bug fixes and Mac-specific support patches to the ooo-build project. Years ago the Ximian work on OOo 1.0.3 was so promising that I put together a Mac OS X port back in 2003 [neooffice.org] which folks used for a long time. OxygenOffice [sourceforge.net] also is based off of the ooo-build project (although I do not know if the OOOP team coordinates with ooo-build).
The ooo-build team has done amazing work. It is sad to see their work go unrecognized by so many and be outright rejected or stalled by Sun. NeoOffice users have loved having the functionality ooo-build brings currently and continues to bring in the future, and much of the work pioneered by ooo-build is critical to maintaining the Mac platform as a viable office solution (read VBA). Sun's lack of acknowledgement and incorporation of ooo-build features does nothing but hurt users. Having received a "you're welcome to join us" response similar to Kohei [kohei.us], I am glad I do not consider myself part of OOo any longer. The freedom of forking has allowed NeoOffice to incorporate all good code without all of these politics and marketing games. Forking has allowed NeoOffice to deliver to Mac users the features they wanted yesterday regardless of where those features came from. Sun has a history of a "not invented here" syndrome at times when it comes to code within their "open" source projects.
I'm glad to see that ooo-build is getting some recognition. I hope more users start seeing some of the great functionality they can get today on Windows and Linux, and once again I thank ooo-build, Ximian, and Novell for their continued dedication to improving OOo.
ed
take notice: Java (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the reasons dual-licensing is bad. Big projects with this problem are OpenOffice, Java, and Qt.
ooo-build (previously just for build fixes) is now a formal fork of OpenOffice [CC] to be located at http://go-oo.org/ [go-oo.org] [CC]
And this is the proper response: to fork the code and make an open-source only version, leaving the company and all its legal shenanigans in the dust.
Re:Conspiracy theory - MS behind all this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conspiracy theory - MS behind all this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that this alternative OOO would be able to use any code from Sun and offer developers an added incentive: they don't have to assign ownership to Sun or anybody. And that can be a big incentive these days after a few projects having closed their source (remember sourceforge, that was not pretty... And more recently CUPS was bought by Apple. Which is not bad per se but I could understand that people who spent a few months of their own time working on it might be unhappy that they did not get a cut of the sale price...)
Of course Sun contributed the main code base and you could see the contributions as a reward to them. But it only works if the new contributions from others are small compared to Sun's. When they become big, you can understand that the contributors might want a more democratic way of handling things.
That's why the FSF says you should assign the copyright to them. But recently they showed that they could use that to make everything GPL3, which is hardly a consensual proposal.
So I guess that the Linux way is pretty good: get code from people who prove they own it and make it GPL. Distribute everything under GPL and count on the absence of a single copyright owner to make sure the initial contract (the GPL version X) will be maintained forever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Discuss...
No, please don't. Please stop your trolling. Please refrain from dragging MS into each and every discussion. It only derails the discussion and lowers the overall quality of this site.
Re:Conspiracy theory - MS behind all this? (Score:4, Informative)
OMGZ!! NOBELL IS THE DEBIL!!!!!
Or.....they are actually fighting for a less restrictive license, in the LGPL.......
Dude, if you have no idea about the MS/Novell agreement (and judging by your post, you do not) then please keep your "mouth" shut. Seriously, it just makes you look stupid and appeals only to the foaming "NOVELL SUCKS!" crowd.
You use so much Novell sponsored code if you use OO.o, KDE, Gnome, Linux Kernel, Tomboy, Beagle, and a ton of other things. Novell is in various F/OSS groups to HELP the F/OSS community, and have been there before the MS deal. They are using their patents to fight patent trolls, stood up to SCO to help Linux when SCO sued IBM, etc
What more do you need as proof? Do they have to use a pair of rusty pliers to put Miguel in his place when he mouths off about something inane (as per usual?)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, just give Miguel a dose of Mono (the disease, not the code), because it certainly makes my linux boxes sick until I disable it.
Imitate a Microsoft product? Talk about having low expectations!
Re:Conspiracy theory - MS behind all this? (Score:5, Informative)
JCA (Score:4, Interesting)
For core changes to the OpenOffice.org code base, Sun requires joint copyright assignment (JCA), whereby both the original author(s) and Sun jointly hold copyright. This allows Sun to relicense the OpenOffice.org code as needed (e.g., GPLv3).
IANAL, but with the JCA, nothing would prevent Kohei from making his code available under LGPL or any license he chooses outside of OpenOffice.org. However, by not signing the JCA, Kohei is preventing his code from being part of the core Oo.org code base. For whatever reason, the Oo.org team must want a solver that is part of the Oo.org code base, so if Kohei won't sign the JCA, there are few available options.
What would be interesting is if there were a way to basically split Kohei's solver component into three pieces. One is the GUI layer (there's menu choices, presumably leading to solver-specific dialog boxes), one is the bridge to communicate with the underlying spreadsheet data, and one implements the solver logic proper. Packaging that last piece as a LGPL third-party component, reusable among other projects (e.g., Gnumeric), might be acceptable to the Oo.org team, provided that the Oo.org-specific UI and data access bridges were part of the core project. I have no idea if this kind of code split makes any sense, since I've never written a solver, though Kohei references lp-solve, suggesting that part of his code might be able to be split into an nlp-solve...
SUN need to get some communication skills (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was with you up until this point. People who think this spec is long don't realize just how complex this stuff is. If you want interoperability to actual work, the spec needs to be much more comprehensive than the ODF spec actually is.
.ods spec doesn't even provide a comprehensive list of supported functions?
Have you noticed that the
It's not needlessly long, its too short.
Re:I'm getting this feedback often... (Score:4, Informative)
2. The problems of bloat, poor performance, memory utilisation etc. have been inherited from MS Office.
3. The ODF spec is overly long and needlessly complex, to be implemented faithfully.
1. They have a setup pretty similar to the Free Software Foundatation (FSF). This is setup so if there is a legal dispute, Sun can send in their lawyers, and they don't have to round up EVERYBODY to come to court.
Would you spend $3000+ on a plane ticket to travel to Idaho for a Copyright challenge? If there is a legal dispute, that is what would have to happen, or we would lose by default, much like a Football team not showing up with the full team.
2. OOo did NOT inherit its bloat from MS Office. Part of it comes from the many tools used to make sure the software was Cross Platform. MS Office has a lot of bloat with NO Cross Platform features. What is their excuse?
3. ODF is 600 pages. That details the tags needed for EVERY single document type (Writer, Calc, Draw, Impress, and Database) that OOo supports. The spec reuses HTML, MathML, and other pre-existing w3c standards, so implementation is pretty similar to already established standards.
Microsofts OOXML spec is 6000+ pages, and that details their Word, Excel, and Powerpoint specs. MS Access is not included. This document creates new "Standards" for pretty much everything.
Now for the disclaimer. My name is Scott Carr. I am an OOo volunteer. I have worked as the Documentation Lead for almost 7 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
2. OOo did NOT inherit its bloat from MS Office. Part of it comes from the many tools used to make sure the software was Cross Platform. MS Office has a lot of bloat with NO Cross Platform features. What is their excuse?
That's not true, and here is the proof [zdnet.com]. Anyone with a Windows computer can easiliy verify the results. MS Office is orders of magnitues faster than OO.o. A warm start of any MS Office tool (Powerpoint, Word, Exel) starts and loads the document in less than 1 second on my P4 3.2 GHz 1GB RAM computer. The reason why is obvious. Better platform integration, preloading libraries and yes, binary formats which is, and always will be, more efficient than XML.
Re: (Score:2)
Load times are not, and never have been an acceptable or reliable "benchmark" for performance.
Try actually USING it for something and then get back to us.
Do you even know what "orders of magnitude" means?
Re: (Score:2)
They would not be able to incorporate it into proprietary software as a "we own this and you can't look at it blob". They are still quite free to exploit it for commercial gain. They just can't treat it like their personal property.
This is no different than any other shared component (owned by someone else) used by any software development company.
Actually, more of OpenOffice should be like that. Most of it should be like that infact. 95% of StarOffice should be in LGPL libraries that are ide