----- Original Message ----
From: Charles-H. Schulz <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT),
BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> a écrit :
From: Charles-H. Schulz <charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org>
> 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have
copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all
today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this
issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has
licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3
or later" or "LGPL v3 or +". But they didn't. And that's what
makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the
sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with
Oracle.
While I like that TDF is not requiring copyright assignment, there is
one point missing here that is in its favor.
True, Sun/Oracle has currently licensed OOo under LGPLv3.
But what's to stop them from going to LGPLv4 when it is available?
Absolutely nothing. At which point TDF may not be able to accept
changes from OOo any longer assuming it is still possible at that time
without updating the LO license to be the same or inclusive therein.
Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to
use the "or later" language; though some may not want to.
Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way
of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever
else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders.
Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we
now license our software under "LGPL v3 or later". At least it would be
solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is
perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really
care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll
stick that much to it in further releases. In fact, I can already
point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking
the path of being "OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community". I
think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up
becoming quite different software.
For the most part, probably not. Though all code coming from OOo is LGPLv3 only,
you might for whatever code is shared if LO was to relicense its code under
LGPLv4 or later at some point, if only to gain the advantages of the new version
of the license from the FSF.
And I in no way intended to make it sound as if LO is just a community recompile
of OOo; rather, it is the community extension of OOo. Kind of similar to how
Andrew Morton and Linus Torvalds both had their own development trees and
releases of the Linux Kernel. Linus' is the official kernel, but it equally
competed with the mm branch maintained by Andrew Morton. The mm branch typically
had everything in Linus' branch plus some other stuff - extra patches, etc. -
that Linus is not ready or willing to accept yet.[1] LO, at least at this
juncture, is very similar with OOo - it's inherited a huge code base that has to
be maintained, and is adding its own stuff. It is wise to incorporate the
changes from OOo for any overlap there is if not only so there is a lower level
of support required for LO until those parts get written out, etc. The bigger
difference here is that LO has to worry about user interface stuff - where
Andrew Morton does not. Only time will truly tell how the two products (LO and
OOo) diverge; but we shouldn't shut the door or exclude the possibility of
continued merges from OOo.
As a developer I certainly do like the no copyright assignment; as an
organization looking to be able to enforce and update the license as necessary
to maintain the product I would prefer the copyright assignment. As I said
earlier, both have their pros and cons.
I wonder if anyone has ever investigated a middle-ground - a contract between
the organization and the developer such that the developer allows the
organization to update the license so long as the license meets certain
conditions - so the organization can be pro-active concerning license changes,
yet doing so without assigning copyright. While IANAL it seems there might be a
way to meet both needs.
Again, just $0.02.
Ben
[1] mm tree was closed down several years back. So it's no longer current, but
there are still numerous other layers in the Linux development model that do
just this still.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.