Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2013 Archives by date, by thread · List index

I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is more important.

With regard to technicalities:

It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code bases.  Period.  That's 
the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including Apache OpenOffice.

On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the Free Software Foundation, 
and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice to incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code 
without consequence.  It is necessary to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that 
is derived from ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation.  (It is similar to 
employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.)

I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological positions on where they are 
willing to contribute.

I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache committers.  It 
satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do essentially all of the things that I can 
do with it and they are assured that I can't revoke that grant.  I still have all of my rights to 
what I contribute.  That's where I stand with regard to licensing.  I have quarrel with others who 
want their code to be handled differently.

 - Dennis   

-----Original Message-----
From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [] 
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences

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 

  - Dennis

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
     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 []
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
told me.

[ ... ]

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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.