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

Hi *,

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynch <> wrote:

I should think there is probably
broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright
such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable.

Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was
neither necessary nor required.

I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle
would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache
and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for
Apache, nor for TDF.


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.