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

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Laurence Jeloudev <> wrote:
So oracle won't make new licensing agreements with any one else except
apache which could see no contribution to the project unless your part
of ASF.

It is not clear to me what you are seeking from Oracle.

While it is true that the ASF will only release the code that was
granted to us under the Apache License, Version 2.0, and furthermore
that we will only accept changes to this code base under terms that
allows us to release those changes under the same license; absolutely
none of this prevents you from taking this code and:

1) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under AGPLv3.
2) integrating your own changes, and releasing the result under MPL2.
3) doing the above with numerous other licenses and furthermore either
dual licensing or even tri-licensing the code
4) integrating your own changes and releasing the result under a
non-open source license (as long as you comply with the generous terms
of the Apache License)

What perhaps is more important than what you can do with this code is
the fact that you do not need to ask anybody's permission to do so.
You don't need to ask the ASF's permission.  You do not need to ask
Oracle's position.  The Apache License, Version 2.0 gives you the
expressed permission to do any or all of the above.

Furthermore, there is no time limit.  And this not only applies to the
initial donation, but also to any and all enhancement made to this
base under the auspices of the ASF.

From my perspective, everything is totally symmetric.  I am equally OK
with somebody saying "I realize that the original code was made by a
for-profit corporation, but I won't release my changes under terms
that allow it to be reintegrated into a proprietary product" as I am
with a statement that "I realize that the code is open source, but I
won't release my changes under open source terms".

I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is.  It
is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
with the larger community.  Direct participation in the development of
that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and
easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you
held back.  Furthermore the extension points you need for your value
add will be in the base.

Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another.
 If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be
able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar
functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license.  Similarly, if
LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block
others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the
ASF under a more liberal license.

Again, fully symmetrical.

It is also not clear to me what you mean by "part of the ASF".

In order to contribute small patches, you simply need to mail them to
the mailing list or enter them in the bug tracker for the project.  In
order to submit larger changes, an ICLA and possibly a CCLA is
required.  To submit a pre-existing and released component to the ASF,
you fill out a Grant.

That's the extent of your involvement.  Do this enough times and we
may vote you in as a committer in order to lighten up our load in
integrating your patches, and this will give you more of a direct say
in the future direction of the product; and show an interest in the
overall health of the product and we may even pull you into the
Project Management Committee; but none of this is required in order to

Furthermore, submitting a patch of any size does not obligate you
further.  You don't need to maintain it.  You aren't required to
contribute anything further, related or unrelated to this original
patch.  Ever.

- Sam Ruby

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.