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

On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 06:19:31PM -0400, Marc Paré wrote:
Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
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.


Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code?

The Apache Foundation releases software only under the Apache License 2.0.
Other entities may take ASF-released code and bundle it in products licensed
under less permissive terms, including proprietary products and copyleft

What the ASF will not do is take the code that came their way via the software
grant from Oracle and release it under terms that *prevent* companies like IBM
from including it in proprietary products.

Disclaimer: I participate in projects at the ASF, but I'm speaking as just
some guy on the internet trying to help everybody out.

Marvin Humphrey

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.