Not to derail the discussion but isn't the aim of OS such that if you add such a thing at VBA to OO that you need to make that available back to the community??? I'm still trying to understand the details of OS. Thanks in advance.
It is, but there's no time-limit to it. You can do it as soon as you release the product, and you can do it in a month, or two. Novell hasn't done it yet - just as they didn't with XGL 'til a certain point - but they most definitely will.
And no, they don't have a licence from MS. They reverse-engineered it.
Sure they can. They can just steal Windows. Fuck you Microsoft, looks like the plan backfired. I bet tons of people here and out there steal Windows. Don't most people? I remember seeing a staggeringly high statistic. Same thing with Office. I myself plan on stealing Windows and Office and running it in Crossover.
It is, but there's no time-limit to it. You can do it as soon as you release the product, and you can do it in a month, or two. Novell hasn't done it yet - just as they didn't with XGL 'til a certain point - but they most definitely will.
And no, they don't have a licence from MS. They reverse-engineered it.
I've not looked at Novell's VBA implementation but if it's not using any GPLd code then they don't have to release the source. Whereas it's not in the spirit of the project, it's perfectly legal to produce closed source addons to an open source project.
Hopefully that's not the case though as it benefits everyone to release the source, including Novell.
Wouldn't hurt for people to let Microsoft know what they think either.
For me I simply won't upgrade to the next version. That's assuming the new file formats don't remove compatibility in the current versions too.
I'm still running Excel classic to maintain compatibility with macros I wrote years ago. Now not only will we lose this, we will lose the VB ones I've written to maintain test data for the company I work for.
Bummers, no new version of Office in my department for a while, since no one else here can write macros or VB for my department. How steep is the learning curve for Filemaker Pro?
I've not looked at Novell's VBA implementation but if it's not using any GPLd code then they don't have to release the source. Whereas it's not in the spirit of the project, it's perfectly legal to produce closed source addons to an open source project.
Hopefully that's not the case though as it benefits everyone to release the source, including Novell.
If they're using GPL (or LGPL) code, and they're extending, improving, or otherwise modifying the code and publicly distributing that modified code, they have to provide sources. If they kept it to themselves, they wouldn't have to, but this is obviously publicly distributed.
If they're using GPL (or LGPL) code, and they're extending, improving, or otherwise modifying the code and publicly distributing that modified code, they have to provide sources. If they kept it to themselves, they wouldn't have to, but this is obviously publicly distributed.
Often, the source for plug-ins don't have to be released because it's not a part of the software. For instance, it is not against the GPL to make a closed-source Linux kernel module, so long as GPL code isn't in in that module's code, it just has to conform to a certain interface and that's it. There are at least a few commercial, closed source Linux modules available and they are clear of any OSS entanglement.
Often, the source for plug-ins don't have to be released because it's not a part of the software.
For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.
For the LGPL, that's correct.
Quote:
For instance, it is not against the GPL to make a closed-source Linux kernel module, so long as GPL code isn't in in that module's code, it just has to conform to a certain interface and that's it.
This is highly debatable. One Linux kernel maintainer living inside an ivory tower on Uranus or something keeps flaming against closed-source Linux kernel modules, alleging they are illegal and in breach of the GPL.
For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.
For the LGPL, that's correct.
This is highly debatable. One Linux kernel maintainer living inside an ivory tower on Uranus or something keeps flaming against closed-source Linux kernel modules, alleging they are illegal and in breach of the GPL.
It does appear there may be a bit of a grey area. The fact that no one has done anything that I can find to stop the practice makes me think that such people are likely just blowing smoke. All or almost all of the companies that distribute a binary Linux kernel without releasing the code have complied, but as far as I can find no real action has been taken against the binary module makers.
Heck, if SUN believed Novell's plug-in was against whatever their license is for OO.o, then they can stop them pretty quickly.
It applies to dynamic linking as well. You can't link non-GPL code to GPL code, static or dynamic.
Do you have links that go through that analysis. As I read GPL, to me its highly debatable (read interpretable) with respect to dynamic linking. I'd be interested in other interpretations, especially the 'why' behind the conclusions.
I'm confused as to why Microsoft likes to include the year in the title of its product. After a year, it becomes outdated. Microsoft Office 2004? It's 2006 already. Hopefully, iWork gets better and becomes more suitable for an Office replacement.
I'm confused as to why Microsoft likes to include the year in the title of its product. After a year, it becomes outdated. Microsoft Office 2004? It's 2006 already. Hopefully, iWork gets better and becomes more suitable for an Office replacement.
Exactly. It makes people more inclined to upgrade, because they're more aware of how "old" it is.
I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.
It's been quite a week for us at MacBU, especially for such a short one. There's a lot of buzz about the blogs here at work and I think the engineers are really feeling the energy that comes from talking directly to users of the products that we build. Macworld is months away and we're already planning for that.
I think we should wait and see what happens with Office before everybody starts going crazy, the new version of iWork should be out before Office, NeoOffice is improving and from what I've read Office 07/08 for Mac should be very good.
Like I've said before Lets wait and see guys, having a little patience never killed anybody
I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.
I think we should wait and see what happens with Office before everybody starts going crazy, the new version of iWork should be out before Office, NeoOffice is improving and from what I've read Office 07/08 for Mac should be very good.
Like I've said before Lets wait and see guys, having a little patience never killed anybody
Blaming the BU serves no purpose for anyone. I agree.
They do the best they can, in an organization that is opposed to the work they are doing, and likely keeps it going for anti-trust issues more than for any other reason.
Any orders they get come from much higher in the organization.
I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.
That may be true but the fact of the matter is they've dropped products in the last few years (Virtual PC, VBA, WMP, IE..) and not created any new products, just warmed over old ones.
With the transition happening, the problems they have with that strategy have come home to roost. If they didn't have a monopoly position, they'd be toast, but instead they can milk their cash cow.
The MacBU is also outside of Microsoft's strategy for Office or Windows. Just go look at all the 'Live' services Microsoft are launching which exclude the Mac, or the sorry state of MSN for the Mac.
Does anyone know how many Mac developers their are in the MacBU? They claim to have the second largest group of developers (1st being Apple) but the evidence of that in product releases is slim.
Comments
Not to derail the discussion but isn't the aim of OS such that if you add such a thing at VBA to OO that you need to make that available back to the community??? I'm still trying to understand the details of OS. Thanks in advance.
It is, but there's no time-limit to it. You can do it as soon as you release the product, and you can do it in a month, or two. Novell hasn't done it yet - just as they didn't with XGL 'til a certain point - but they most definitely will.
And no, they don't have a licence from MS. They reverse-engineered it.
Sure they can. They can just steal Windows. Fuck you Microsoft, looks like the plan backfired. I bet tons of people here and out there steal Windows. Don't most people? I remember seeing a staggeringly high statistic. Same thing with Office. I myself plan on stealing Windows and Office and running it in Crossover.
You're a naughty, naughty boy.
It is, but there's no time-limit to it. You can do it as soon as you release the product, and you can do it in a month, or two. Novell hasn't done it yet - just as they didn't with XGL 'til a certain point - but they most definitely will.
And no, they don't have a licence from MS. They reverse-engineered it.
I've not looked at Novell's VBA implementation but if it's not using any GPLd code then they don't have to release the source. Whereas it's not in the spirit of the project, it's perfectly legal to produce closed source addons to an open source project.
Hopefully that's not the case though as it benefits everyone to release the source, including Novell.
Wouldn't hurt for people to let Microsoft know what they think either.
For me I simply won't upgrade to the next version. That's assuming the new file formats don't remove compatibility in the current versions too.
I'm still running Excel classic to maintain compatibility with macros I wrote years ago. Now not only will we lose this, we will lose the VB ones I've written to maintain test data for the company I work for.
Bummers, no new version of Office in my department for a while, since no one else here can write macros or VB for my department. How steep is the learning curve for Filemaker Pro?
I've not looked at Novell's VBA implementation but if it's not using any GPLd code then they don't have to release the source. Whereas it's not in the spirit of the project, it's perfectly legal to produce closed source addons to an open source project.
Hopefully that's not the case though as it benefits everyone to release the source, including Novell.
If they're using GPL (or LGPL) code, and they're extending, improving, or otherwise modifying the code and publicly distributing that modified code, they have to provide sources. If they kept it to themselves, they wouldn't have to, but this is obviously publicly distributed.
If they're using GPL (or LGPL) code, and they're extending, improving, or otherwise modifying the code and publicly distributing that modified code, they have to provide sources. If they kept it to themselves, they wouldn't have to, but this is obviously publicly distributed.
Often, the source for plug-ins don't have to be released because it's not a part of the software. For instance, it is not against the GPL to make a closed-source Linux kernel module, so long as GPL code isn't in in that module's code, it just has to conform to a certain interface and that's it. There are at least a few commercial, closed source Linux modules available and they are clear of any OSS entanglement.
Often, the source for plug-ins don't have to be released because it's not a part of the software.
For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.
For the LGPL, that's correct.
For instance, it is not against the GPL to make a closed-source Linux kernel module, so long as GPL code isn't in in that module's code, it just has to conform to a certain interface and that's it.
This is highly debatable. One Linux kernel maintainer living inside an ivory tower on Uranus or something keeps flaming against closed-source Linux kernel modules, alleging they are illegal and in breach of the GPL.
For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.
For the LGPL, that's correct.
This is highly debatable. One Linux kernel maintainer living inside an ivory tower on Uranus or something keeps flaming against closed-source Linux kernel modules, alleging they are illegal and in breach of the GPL.
It does appear there may be a bit of a grey area. The fact that no one has done anything that I can find to stop the practice makes me think that such people are likely just blowing smoke. All or almost all of the companies that distribute a binary Linux kernel without releasing the code have complied, but as far as I can find no real action has been taken against the binary module makers.
Heck, if SUN believed Novell's plug-in was against whatever their license is for OO.o, then they can stop them pretty quickly.
IHeck, if SUN believed Novell's plug-in was against whatever their license is for OO.o, then they can stop them pretty quickly.
It's LGPL, and no, SUN can't stop them. I'm pretty optimistic that Novell will release the code, as it has done with other things in the past.
For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.
So don't statically link to GPLd code or use GPLd stubs.
Provided there's a clean plugin interface that doesn't require you to link I thought you were fine.
So don't statically link to GPLd code
It applies to dynamic linking as well. You can't link non-GPL code to GPL code, static or dynamic.
It applies to dynamic linking as well. You can't link non-GPL code to GPL code, static or dynamic.
Do you have links that go through that analysis. As I read GPL, to me its highly debatable (read interpretable) with respect to dynamic linking. I'd be interested in other interpretations, especially the 'why' behind the conclusions.
http://www.schwieb.com/blog/2006/08/...-visual-basic/
http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...09/693499.aspx
http://reverendted.wordpress.com/200...el-vba-macros/
I'm confused as to why Microsoft likes to include the year in the title of its product. After a year, it becomes outdated. Microsoft Office 2004? It's 2006 already. Hopefully, iWork gets better and becomes more suitable for an Office replacement.
Exactly. It makes people more inclined to upgrade, because they're more aware of how "old" it is.
Exactly. It makes people more inclined to upgrade, because they're more aware of how "old" it is.
iLife1,2,3,4,5,6, and would you guess what the number might be for next year?
http://blogs.msdn.com/macmojo/default.aspx
It's been quite a week for us at MacBU, especially for such a short one. There's a lot of buzz about the blogs here at work and I think the engineers are really feeling the energy that comes from talking directly to users of the products that we build. Macworld is months away and we're already planning for that.
I think we should wait and see what happens with Office before everybody starts going crazy, the new version of iWork should be out before Office, NeoOffice is improving and from what I've read Office 07/08 for Mac should be very good.
Like I've said before Lets wait and see guys, having a little patience never killed anybody
I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.
http://blogs.msdn.com/macmojo/default.aspx
I think we should wait and see what happens with Office before everybody starts going crazy, the new version of iWork should be out before Office, NeoOffice is improving and from what I've read Office 07/08 for Mac should be very good.
Like I've said before Lets wait and see guys, having a little patience never killed anybody
Blaming the BU serves no purpose for anyone. I agree.
They do the best they can, in an organization that is opposed to the work they are doing, and likely keeps it going for anti-trust issues more than for any other reason.
Any orders they get come from much higher in the organization.
I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.
That may be true but the fact of the matter is they've dropped products in the last few years (Virtual PC, VBA, WMP, IE..) and not created any new products, just warmed over old ones.
With the transition happening, the problems they have with that strategy have come home to roost. If they didn't have a monopoly position, they'd be toast, but instead they can milk their cash cow.
The MacBU is also outside of Microsoft's strategy for Office or Windows. Just go look at all the 'Live' services Microsoft are launching which exclude the Mac, or the sorry state of MSN for the Mac.
Does anyone know how many Mac developers their are in the MacBU? They claim to have the second largest group of developers (1st being Apple) but the evidence of that in product releases is slim.