Talk:OpenOffice.org: Difference between revisions
David Gerard (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 243: | Line 243: | ||
I admit to confusion. I understood that there was code under licenses other than the Apache Licence in the tarball and the resulting binary. Is this not actually the case? Is every line and byte under the AL or an equivalent [[permissive license]]? [[Weak copyleft]] licenses such as the MPL are ''allowed'', but is there actually no code under this variety of licence? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
I admit to confusion. I understood that there was code under licenses other than the Apache Licence in the tarball and the resulting binary. Is this not actually the case? Is every line and byte under the AL or an equivalent [[permissive license]]? [[Weak copyleft]] licenses such as the MPL are ''allowed'', but is there actually no code under this variety of licence? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
:A license comes from a copyright owner. A copyright might exist on individual files, but it also exists on the "arrangement and selection" of the entire work. This is called a "compilation copyright". So a uniform license can apply to the whole as well. For every other software article I see on Wikipedia, the license listed is the license on the whole, the compilation. For example, the [[LibreOffice]] article lists LGPL as the license. But LibreOffice includes code taken from Apache OpenOffice as well, under the Apache License. But that does not change the license on the whole. [[User:Vaccinium|Vaccinium]] ([[User talk:Vaccinium|talk]]) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: |
Revision as of 17:25, 22 January 2013
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | OpenOffice.org is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
|
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
A database management program similar to Microsoft Access.
Whatever that means, it doesn't mean the same thing as
"A spreadsheet similar to Microsoft Excel and Lotus 1-2-3." (Calc)
or
"A word processor similar to Microsoft Word and WordPerfect." (Writer)
So the statement is confusing and inconsistant with the rest of the table.
Calc is used like and as a replacement for Excel. Writer is used like and as a replacement for Word.
Base is not used as an alternative for Access or Framemaker or Crystal Reports. That is because it still has really limited functionality compared to those products. The most important working functionality is as a data connector. Base has got other stuff as well, but it's not very well developed. So Base is not really similar to Microsoft Access, which works as a data connector but is most importantly a report writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2011
- ooCalc can't be used as a replacement for Excel. Most business applications such as Sage Simply Accounting and Monster.com refuse to accept input from Writer docs or Calc xls spreadsheets, but accept input from Excel xls spreadsheets only, even though Calc & Excel spreadsheets are somewhat interchangeable. Sage software recognizes that the Calc data isn't coming from a true Microsoft application, and refuses to import any of it. Santamoly (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
screenshot os
once apache relases aoo 3.4 i think we should change the openoffice screenshots from apache-open-office (aoo) running in ubuntu to aoo running in windows.
my rationale is that aoo is soon to become primarily a windows app. all linux distros have abandoned it and moved to libreoffice, therfore the article should not show aoo running ubuntu because this is misleading and not the most repsentative example of the aoo interface.
what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
requirements
I suppose that would be nice to add requirements of program depending of version of package &/without Java--Albedo @ 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
easter egg
Are the easter eggs in the spreadsheet worth mentioning--Commander v99 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- No per WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. This should be added to any external web page listing cheats, easter eggs and similar stuff. This is an encyclopedia. ;-) mabdul 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved to OpenOffice as the common name. (It could be split if there's a need to distinguish its OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice incarnations.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
OpenOffice.org → Apache OpenOffice – The project has been officially renamed: [[1]]. Clconway (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. mabdul 17:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the "common name" is OpenOffice, not OpenOffice.org. The ".org" is just an official branding wart, the same as "Apache". Anyway, we can expect Apache OpenOffice to overtake OpenOffice.org as the more common name in good time, as Jakew suggests below—there's no reason to expect users to stubbornly stick with the ungainly OpenOffice.org. Clconway (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL is a pretty good reason not to "expect" it. I didn't say OpenOffice.org was or was not the commonly used name, but "Apache OpenOffice" sure isn't, and I have very strong doubts that this would change any time soon. - SudoGhost 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- See below for some data. Clconway (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL is a pretty good reason not to "expect" it. I didn't say OpenOffice.org was or was not the commonly used name, but "Apache OpenOffice" sure isn't, and I have very strong doubts that this would change any time soon. - SudoGhost 19:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles titles are determined by the name most commonly used by English language reliable sources; articles titles are not determined by any official name (or renaming, in this case). - SudoGhost 17:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. However, it seems possible (perhaps even likely) that sources will start to refer to the project using the new name. I'd therefore suggest that it would be wise to reconsider the name in, say, a year. Jakew (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Move to OpenOffice for the time being instead. The most concise, common name should be preferable. I still disagree with the current article title because the subject of the page is a software program, not a web site per se. "OpenOffice.org" and "Apache OpenOffice" are more official names for the software. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I started this move discussion and I now support this alternative. "OpenOffice" is the common name (see data below), which has remained consistent through the stewardship of Sun, Oracle and Apache, and all the associated official renamings. Clconway (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Apache OpenOffice is now the software's correct name. Just as the New Jersey Nets article was renamed Brooklyn Nets when the team moved, so should Apache OpenOffice be renamed since it, too, has "moved." Raider Duck (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Apache OpenOffice now is new brand of OpenOffice.org and this is undoubted. I don't think common name for something on OLD REFERENCES is a good reason for being outdated on Wikipedia. [In my opinion] WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable for here, it is very clear OpenOffice.org is renamed to Apache OpenOffice. If you see Apache OpenOffice website, you can see name of Apache OpenOffice everywhere [on page title, on news, on...]. –ebraminiotalk 14:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. The product has formally been renamed/rebranded from OpenOffice.org to Apache OpenOffice, so the current title is actually incorrect. As long as there are redirects from the other common names, everything should be fine Janhoy (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
The name change took effect in December. Here are the results of some Google News searches as of May 4, 2012:
- "openoffice.org -apache": 65 results, including many phrases such as "LibreOffice and its ancestor OpenOffice.org".
- "openoffice -openoffice.org": 182 results, including sources such as ZD Net, PC Magazine, and IT World.
- "apache openoffice" (phrase): 12 results, most duplicated from above.
Per WP:COMMON, I think the common name is in fact OpenOffice. I still support a move to Apache OpenOffice, as it is the proper name and sufficiently similar to the "common name" to avoid confusion. Clconway (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Another point for discussion: it's incongruous to have the lede, the InfoBox and the logo image all read "Apache OpenOffice" when the title is "OpenOffice.org". If the consensus is not to move the article, what should we do to avoid confusion? Should the lede be "OpenOffice.org, commonly known as..." Clconway (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
New Suggestion
I suggest that the article not be moved, but rather that a new Apache Open Office article should be started. This article should discuss the classic OpenOffice.org and its history under Sun, through the Oracle purchase and its ultimate consequences. Because "Apache Open Office" is a major effort at rebranding following a major discontinuity (during which the project went into hibernation for a long time, no updates were done, and a large part of its developer community, perhaps the majority, left it for a fork). Just like LibreOffice (the fork) has its own article, so too should the Apache Open Office rebranding have its own article. Both of them are separate attempts at the future, while "OpenOffice.org" is the past. Dovi (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea of that solution, but I belive that we have to wait for - say - a year until a) OOo 3.5 and OOo 4 is released. OOo 3.5 includes the major cleanup work of the IP and some small new features/faster work (e.g. for SVG) and OOo 4 should be released within 2012 with the merge of IBM Lotus Symphony. Until now, it's all CRYSTAL and unlikely notable. mabdul 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why wait for any certain release? The first release (3.4) is enough, along with the corporate effort (IBM) if it's verifiable and notable. Don't know why it should be "unlikely notable" when there has been tons about Apache Open Office in the mainstream press. Even the verifiable plan for a merge with IBM Lotus Symphony along with what already exists is enough to justify an article. Dovi (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Until now, there is no "new" release. There is no 3.4 and moreover I highly doubt that some announcements are enough to create a new article in an encyclopedia. At least I would !vote in an AfD for merge and I know that some other contributors would likely do the same. Simply wait until a new major release is published and then we can go on an split the article. Keep in mind: we have no deadline! mabdul 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- True enough. Dovi (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
So OpenOffice will get an overhaul in a new major version. Big deal… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes and no: the proposed move is still valid: moving this article to what (or leave it here). I discussed only against the proposal to create now a separated 'Apache Open Office' article. mabdul 08:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of waiting for an actual final release. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, [In my opinion] Apache OpenOffice is not a new software project. It is just a new brand of a transferred project (from Oracle Corporation to Apache Foundation). –ebraminiotalk 14:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not a new or different project, and to my knowledge it isn't being described as such by any reliable sources. - SudoGhost 15:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- No - This is an owner change as before. Sun -> Oracle -> Apache. They simply chose to drop the .org to simplify things. The article should be renamed Apache OpenOffice but tell the story in the History section. The LibreOffice fork is another concurrently developed product, OOo is not. AOO is the continuation of OOo Janhoy (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
- different license
- different development team and different main sponsors
- different version control system
- different gouvernance
- different name and trademark (even dropping the .org)
essentially the only thing AOO and OOo share is the codebase, but so do OOo and LibreOffice, OOo and Symphony, OOo and go-oo. AOO is no different from other follow-up projects. 84.46.78.210 (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- "different development team and different main sponsors" - really? It's still IBM and Oracle.
- IBM didnt contribute to OOo in a relevant way. The main sponsor was Sun/Oracles team in Hamburg and that was dissolved. IBM hired at most half a dozen of those back, but none of the old infrastructure or organizational stucture remained. --84.46.78.210 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- "different name and trademark" - happened before, too
- "different version control system" - some "uninteresting" internal stuff, not very special for the end user.
- "different gouvernance" - see above
- "different development team and different main sponsors" - really? It's still IBM and Oracle.
- My remarks from the RM !vote above still stand: there is still no major release by Apache. At the moment there were only minor tweaks and IP clearance. mabdul 10:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- If that is the case, the article should focus on the historic OOo project, not the current AOO one, which then is only a sidenote on this topic. --84.46.78.210 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Apache incubator
The current status of the project is an "incubator" project http://incubator.apache.org/ - "The Incubator project is the entry path into The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) for projects and codebases wishing to become part of the Foundation's efforts.", it seems still unclear in how far the ASF backs OpenOffice as "their" product and whether the incubated project OO.org is already part of the Foundation's efforts. I am sure it it possible to find an official statement.--Arebenti (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's now top-level, so this is moot - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Open Office vulnerability?
Check out www.engr.colostate.edu/~sudeep/teaching/ppt/lec12_security.ppt go to slide 19, enter slide show mode, continue the slide until you should reach slide 20... vulnerability attack inside a honeypot lecture about security... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.177.199 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
OxygenOffice
What is OxygenOffice? I thought it was different from Open Office, but I got redirected to Open Office. 202.179.16.80 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please check OpenOffice#Other projects - OxygenOffice is (or beter saying was) a fork which extends the macro extensibility of OOo. See their official sourceforge site. mabdul 20:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I started a new article at User:mabdul/OxygenOffice. Feel free to read that before taht is published and feel free to help me. ;-) mabdul 13:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Open Office sans .org
Shouldn't there be some mention, even if it's only a "Not to be confused with", of the original Open Office (Which was the reason for the '.org' suffix)? --Deke42 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is still in: OpenOffice#Ownership: "The project and software are informally referred to as OpenOffice, but since this term is a trademark held by other parties, OpenOffice.org was its formal name.[101]" Regards, mabdul 23:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Logo in SVG
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
The logo used on this page is bitmap. There is a SVG file present on Apache OpenOffice website. Churchyard (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks and uploaded. mabdul 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
unbundling subsections Go-oo and LibreOffice
Why were these two subsections unbundled? The Go-oo project was merged and discontinued in favour of the LibreOffice project. I think these two projects hould be discussed in one section! mabdul 17:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. ooo-build -> Go-oo -> LO have been very much the same continuous project for nearly a decade - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Badly in need of copyediting and sensible revision
I've just been doing copyedits. Things like tenses, doubled titles in references, etc. Could others please help? The article is also in need of a general revision - structurally it's a mess, and presently reads a bit like an advertising brochure that's been run through Google Translate twice - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cleaned up about the first third (including the section header foulup that someone left there for months). Everything from "File formats" down needs going over for grammar, clarity, redundancy and obsolete present- and forward-looking statements.
- I'm also not sure about whether to put "Features" (what it actually is) before "History" - what do people think a reader would come here to find out? - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Basically, the further you go down the article the less organised it is and the more it reads like people just throwing stuff in. I'm now trying to integrate the random sections into a decent history that will be useful to the reader. Needs better coverage of what the project achieved in the bigger world during Sun's custodianship, not just a timeline of features - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Historical importance of OOo: [2] Anything else?
- The stuff in "Partnerships" is stuff that may have sounded important at the time, but is it actually relevant to 2012? Why does anyone want to know this? The stuff in "Reviews" looks old and random, and needs to be part of a proper history of OO's importance - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Old OOo press page [3] - hopefully the dead links are in archive.org - David Gerard (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
File formats
I thought OO did MS Works and Office 2007 - but they're not in the references. Anyone got references for these? - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Evidently not - its go-oo (and now LibreOffice) that reads and writes these. OOo reads DOCX since 3.0, but whenever someone asks on the OO forums how to write DOCX they're told this is a wrong thing to want (and LO doing them just fine is not mentioned) - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Notable users, Retail
These are the only two sections I haven't gone through myself. Anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
LO as successor
Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits, IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and it'll be appropriate to make this article all about OpenOffice.org and make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- For someone doing so many edits, your inability to even read the 4.0 section is stunning. OO 4.0 in February? WTF? March/April is the target date.
- IBM’s Symphony contribution is here: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/symphony/
- As with all professional software projects, major new features (in OO4’s case IAccessible2 and the Sidebar GUI) are developed in separate branches: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/branches/
- And while there is nothing wrong with new articles for new major versions of software (as it’s done with MS Office), your reasons are emotional (=non-neutral) and therefore a violation of WP’s NPOV policy. I hope we won’t see any of your aversion against AOO leak into the article. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seeing the obvious and being able to cite it are of course different things - David Gerard (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, the licensing hasn't actually been sorted out yet in svn [4], which appears to be at least one source of confusion [5][6]. (Though I see no reason to presume they won't sort it out in time.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
CFD notice
mabdul 00:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
SISSL retirement
I recalled at the time that the retirement of the SISSL was actually about IBM not releasing modifications, which they would have had to do under LGPL. All I can find about this is a blog comment: [7] which isn't much. Anyone else? - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have found some, not really exactly clear, but between the lines:
- http://www.itpro.co.uk/99409/novell-boosts-microsoft-office-and-openoffice-xml-interoperability
- http://www.itpro.co.uk/124598/ibm-signs-up-with-the-openoffice-project
- http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9037499/Can_IBM_save_OpenOffice.org_from_itself_ and http://www.itpro.co.uk/610553/ibm-sun-and-openoffice-org (", [such as] Apache and Eclipse, that we can look to as models of open governance, copyright aggregation and licensing regimes that would make the code much more relevant to a much larger set of potential contributors and implementers of the technology...." on page 3)
- http://www.openoffice.org/press/ibm_press_release.html
- mabdul 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's the later partnership (the 2008 deal which apparently meant Sun giving IBM OOo code, which was the contractual obligation that led to Oracle dumping OO's remains at Apache), not the time of the SISSL - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Windows screenshot
This is not acceptable for Commons - the software is Apache-licensed, but Windows is not. If we want a screenshot, it's going to have to be in a freely-licensed system such as Linux. Is there anyone reading this and running Linux who actually has Apache OpenOffice installed? - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I went through the remarkable faff and multiple attempts at downloading to get a copy installed on an Ubuntu VM and screenshotted. If this is typical Sourceforge download performance, I can see where they get such high numbers from - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm currently downloading AOO 3.4.1 and will post a screenshot very soon if AOO installs correctly. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nice one! I missed that that one was in Windows - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm currently downloading AOO 3.4.1 and will post a screenshot very soon if AOO installs correctly. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
What other screenshots do you want? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- None occur to me. What screenshot would be useful? I can't really think of one (I have 3.4.1 installed in a Xubuntu 12.04.1 VM here.) An AOO 4.0 screenshot will be very useful, particularly if they have a new interface, but I can't find builds of that code as yet - is the IBM branch just source as yet? Does it build easily? - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
File format table
Can't get "sortable" to work. What am I doing wrong? - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Done mabdul 15:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nice one! I had the words the wrong way around ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Google alerts
I'm finding a daily Google alert on "OpenOffice" and "LibreOffice" very useful (it's where I got that Sourceforge post on AOO downloads and the AOO 4.0 feature list, for example) - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is also http://planet.documentfoundation.org . mabdul 10:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
AOO 3.4 and late Mac OS X?
I'm seeing a couple of forum reports [8][9][10][11][12] that AOO doesn't actually work on later versions of Mac OS X, despite the release notes claiming support (and it's not the Gatekeeper kicking in). Is this the case? Can anyone with a recent Mac verify the fact, if not find a citation (even a bug report) for it? - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bug report, unconfirmed and lacking any detail - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not alter reference quotes
This edit changed a claim in the article ... and also attempted alteration of the supporting quoted text of the referenced source. Of course, the alteration is obvious if one goes to the referenced source. Please take care in editing not to accidentally do this - there are strong opinions surrounding this project (or, per the above, these projects), but that's why referencing is so popular on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Licensing
I admit to confusion. I understood that there was code under licenses other than the Apache Licence in the tarball and the resulting binary. Is this not actually the case? Is every line and byte under the AL or an equivalent permissive license? Weak copyleft licenses such as the MPL are allowed, but is there actually no code under this variety of licence? - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- A license comes from a copyright owner. A copyright might exist on individual files, but it also exists on the "arrangement and selection" of the entire work. This is called a "compilation copyright". So a uniform license can apply to the whole as well. For every other software article I see on Wikipedia, the license listed is the license on the whole, the compilation. For example, the LibreOffice article lists LGPL as the license. But LibreOffice includes code taken from Apache OpenOffice as well, under the Apache License. But that does not change the license on the whole. Vaccinium (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)