You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of
what is the differences between them. That said, it still is all about
what the developer feels is a better license for their coding. What I
have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding
under one type of licensing over another. If they do not like the
"default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute
their coding to that project.
The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO
project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a
more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted? Can
software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still
gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other
version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership"
and no longer available for an open source project?
On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton 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
PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache License.
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:
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
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.
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19
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
[ ... ]
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
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