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

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:54, James Walker <> 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.


[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
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.