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

Well, it is not the OCA or ICLA that is passed onward.  

So the question is, I think, is there any difference in how the OCA allowed Oracle to license the 
contributions and how the ICLA allows Apache to license contributions?  There is one obvious 
difference: Apache can't enter into a private license nor create a sublicense that is incompatible 
with the license they are given in the ICLA.  Oracle has the power, under the OCA, to create 
whatever licenses it wanted and even make further transfers of copyright.

In practice, the LGPL license from Oracle and the ALv2 license from Apache both permit 
sublicensing, but the ALv2 is more permissive in lacking the reciprocity requirement.  As Thorsten 
has observed, it means he gives up more exclusive rights if he can't count on reciprocity and wants 
to require it.  

I don't agree that both allow the receiving entity to issue the contribution under any license they 
want to.  Definitely for Oracle but I don't think so for Apache, even though the ICLA does not 
identify the license Apache will use.  (You have to trust that the foundation rules for Apache 
prevent the obvious transgressions and they must be aware what some dramatic change of direction 
would do with regard to their community base.)

IANAL and I don't know whether sublicensing of ALV2 licensed code as LGPL falls under the notion of 
"sublicensing."  But I suspect the requirement that the ALv2 license/notice be attached is not 
something a sublicense can work around.  That is, a sublicense can't be *more* permissive than the 
license that is being sublicensed.  I could find no precedent for that in examples of sublicensing 
(admittedly, using Web sources of questionable virtue).

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Bernhard Dippold [] 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 04:18
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?

Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all

thanks for pointing to this very topic.

So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably
minor consequences in code usage:

While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus
needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of
copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing
the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts.

Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single
case authorization) they want to.

[ ... ]

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.