Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hey Jonathan,

1) Sigrid is right, we would need to ask for Oracle to relicense.
2) The new, non-Oracle patches are however licensed under a dual (L)GPL
v3 + (note the + which allows us to upgrade) and MPL + as we found we
had several code lines written under that license inside the existing
OOo code. 
3) would Oracle object to it? I'm not Oracle and can't speak for them,
but I don't think they're our best friends for life... :-) More
seriously, why would they want to help us ?


Le Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:51:52 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina <> a écrit :

In all honesty would they object to it?

On 1/13/11 11:46 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote:

2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilina<>:
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the
original code?
yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific
license. This cannot changed without consent from those people.


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.