RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

I understand that differences between licences are technical and seem
trivial to end-users.

So if not the licences, how is LO different from AOO? In terms that
end-users can understand.

Immanuel
On Dec 31, 2012 8:29 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
wrote:

> That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it.
>
> Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does
> not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by
> individuals in their business or institutional activities.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache
> License.
>
> DETAILS
>
> Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a
> perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms.  There is
> no transfer of ownership whatsoever.  (Just for a moment of irony, it was
> the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of
> ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.)
>
> You can find the ALv2 everywhere.  The Committer License Agreement (CLA)
> is here:
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>.
>
> The key statement is this:
>
>    "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation
>     and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation,
>     You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to
>     Your Contributions."
>
> Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own
> (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant.  It
> is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this.
>
> This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that
> LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific
> licenses (and say nothing about patents).
>
> The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is
> not a reciprocal license.  It does not require that derivative works be
> provided in source code and under the same license.  The ALv2 also has no
> limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded
> system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service.
>
> The license differences have no practical impact on end users.  It does
> have ideological importance to contributors.  Some end users may want to
> express their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such
> allegiance, it is valuable to stick to the facts.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmaster@krackedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
> [ ... ]
> >
>
> As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding
> they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that
> project the ownership of the coding.  Whether or not the "wording" is
> stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have
> told me.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> 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

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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