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).
From: Bernhard Dippold [mailto:email@example.com]
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 firstname.lastname@example.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
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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