Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello Andrea,

Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:10:07 +0200,
Andrea Pescetti <> a écrit :

Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for
code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far
the right decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute

Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for 
contribution was lowered to the point that anyone who can use a text 
editor can contribute to the code, even if he is unable to build 
LibreOffice. The Easy Hacks were a nice way to attract new people. Of 
course the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see
it as the most effective improvement.

The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your
copyright is the most important.

3) ... In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. ... 
BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed SCM.

So did (and still does) with Mercurial, another 
distributed SCM. But I don't believe this is relevant.

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.

Well, if you take for granted that cooperation between Oracle and the 
Document Foundation will forever be impossible then you are right.
But who knows what will happen in months, years? If Oracle changes
attitude and wants to discuss licensing with the Document Foundation,
the Document Foundation will be in the awkward position of
"representing" the LibreOffice developers only in theory, because any
agreement would then need to be confirmed with every developer; while
with a copyright agreement/assignment in place, the Document
Foundation could effectively represent a measurable percentage of the
codebase, and its opinion be weighed accordingly.

So we do take for granted that Oracle will not contribute to the
Document Foundation, because that's what Oracle clearly implied in their
last press release and what they told us (informally). This has to be
very clear from now on. We are still open for future discussions, of
course, but what you seem to imply is that conditions for a cooperation
would require the document foundation to assign copyright (the
contributions of the LibreOffice developers) back to Oracle again. Well
this is something that will never ever happen. If Oracle wants to work
with us, if we find a way to cooperate, I can assure you that the
condition will not be that we give our copyright to Oracle. Everybody
can keep its own copyright and it will be a very healthy situation. 


Best regards,
   Andrea Pescetti.

Unsubscribe instructions: Email to
Posting guidelines:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***


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.