Re: [tdf-discuss] Questions from the sidelines.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:54, James Walker <centralus@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe he is asking
>
> Why would we want the code to begin with at this point.
>
> at the time of the fork, we already had all the code that was in OOo up to
> that point, now LO has added more code, cleaned up a lot of code, and has
> the backing of several large Linux companies.  So why at this point do we
> need or want to go back to being known as OOo?

I think that the TDF may want the code in order to "rebase" the
licensing stack, to provide greater flexibility in adjusting the
LibreOffice package's license. According to the LO licensing
policy[1], the codebase is mostly Oracle's LPGLv3 license, yet the
desire is to move everything to a tri-license[2]. Getting a copy of
Oracle's codebase under the ALv2 license means that more of the code
can be shipped under all three licenses (LGPLv3, GPLv3,
MPLv$whatever). You can't change the license header away from ALv2
(like you can't change it away from LGPLv3 today), but the overall
package would have much more flexibility in its licensing.

Cheers,
-g

[1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy
[2] tho an interesting question: if the MPL was used to entice IBM,
but they prefer Apache, then it seems a reasonable to ask whether you
want to keep MPL as an option

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted