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

Not sure if this will help http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html

but that site allows one to read the licenses in more detail.

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org>wrote:

> I dropped an important word:
>
> "I have *no* quarrel with others who want their code to be handled
> differently."
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 20:54
> To: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
>
> 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 [mailto:webmaster@krackedpress.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> 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 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
>
>
> --
> 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



-- 
Jonathan Aquilina

-- 
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