yum: How to downgrade openoffice 2.3 to 2.2.1?
gene.heskett at verizon.net
Wed Nov 7 18:37:05 UTC 2007
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Craig White wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 12:53 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> >Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >> I haven't really exercised it (2.3.0) all that much but what I've done
>> >> was done exactly as I expected. Eg, it Just Worked(TM).
>> >> To Rahul: Are there concerns re patents that make RH pull stuff out of
>> >> OOo?
>> >There was a mix of stuff. Some Java portions used to not work well with
>> >GCJ. There was concern over patents in other features. Sun has a patent
>> >cross licensing agreement with Microsoft that makes them immune to these
>> >problems so it might be that they wouldn't care but if affects everybody
>> >else including end users who don't use Staroffice (which gets some kind
>> >of patent license as a commercial product).
>> In defense of that, it might be enlightening to take a survey and see how
>> many folks try to use the java tools fedora supplies vs folks that dl and
>> install their java directly from sun. I'm in the probably 95% column that
>> did that. And it Just Works(TM).
>> That's not saying you (speaking as RH) are wrong, but that is how many
>> will perceive it, they somehow expecting RH to shoulder the legal
>> liability for that and which is not at all realistic to ask. It appears
>> to us that it is perfectly legal for us to do so however, so we don't
>> always accept that condescension quietly.
>> The only place where I have a personal distaste is that when we do that,
>> then RH/Fedora seems to want to say that we are the sinners in this nearly
>> religious perfect adherence to the GPL. As users, we just want it to
>> work, and TBT it does.
>> Can you imagine the hoorah that would be created if sun (or M$ for that
>> matter) were to go after each of us JRE downloaders individually? I
>> suspect that would ultimately cause the demise of 'the big bad wolf'
>> regardless of the security pass on the left breast pocket's issuer, and
>> they damned well know it. I'd think it would also be laughed out of court
>> as entrapment because its freely offered for download, fully customized to
>> run on linux.
>I hate it when you misinform...
:( Its not intentional Craig.
>the big issue with Sun's JRE is that there was a restrictive license and
>even though they have been transferring all of the bits to GPL, some
>parts have been stragglers and preventing large scale adoption into a
>There is no one to sue, there never was a problem with liability,
>incorrectness nor any problem other than Sun's java was never fully,
>completely GPL licensed...apparently that's complete now.
I wasn't aware the transition was complete now, I've been on the road with
much more important things on my mind since a week ago last Monday, saying
goodbye to a dying daughter. Cancer. Now I'm trying to catch up while
waiting for the phone to ring when she is gone.
The last time I looked at it, several months ago after they had released some
of it, the styling was totally strange to me, and dependencies by the gross
were on the missing list so I just nuked what I'd downloaded. I haven't
looked since so thanks for bringing me somewhat more uptodate.
But whats this about a cross-licensing with M$? To me, that's another can of
worms that once opened, will take a much larger container to store them in.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
To do nothing is to be nothing.
More information about the fedora-list