If they are considering pulling the plug on the OOo line they would be
on our side. I think its worth a shot in my honest opinion.
On 01/13/2011 01:19 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
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
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<firstname.lastname@example.org> 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<email@example.com>:
You would still need permission even though its a fork of the
yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific
license. This cannot changed without consent from those people.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store · Fabián Rodríguez
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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