Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code

Hello Jim,

while it is hard to understand the problem, in principle, with using any 
combination of licenses in addition to the project's	 preferred 
LGPLv3/MPLv2 dual license, do you have a patch or proposal for a patch 
submitted to the dev mailing list that we can look at?

Best,
Florian

Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05:
> Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question.
>
> I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
> I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
> Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
> nothing else, is such a patch acceptable.
>
> Dropping OpenOffice since they have already indicated that
> the answer for them is YES.
>
> And this is not a theoretical question. I have been
> approached by people and companies stating that
> they wish to help LO but want to provide their code
> patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons)
> and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such
> code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple
> licensed under the ALv2.
>
> tia.
>
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jim,
> >
> > thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject here: 
> > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy
> >
> > Best,
> > Florian
> >
> >
> > Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32:

--
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