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

Il 02/11/2010 13.12, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:


I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
practical matters.
Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal
document - but would have to extract it, from a potential
independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your
contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
in such cases... ;)

I understand that the first need and worry of the new project is to attract new developers.

Firstly, survive. Then, think how do you succeeded in doing so.

It's a Law of Nature. :)

Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.

And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed
in this, or comparable, ways.

I know it works.

However, what it works it isn't always the best *legal* solution.

If this is the chosen approach to contributions, well, I hope it'll work once again. :)


Gianluca Turconi

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.