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

My reading of the answers is

1. It depends on how interesting they find the contribution.

2. Some members would vote no because the code is also available under a more permissive license.

It is clear that if you provide code to AOO, then LO is able to take the code, but it is not clear that they would choose to do so.

Someone suggested posting to the DEV list. I assume that this means that you should email them, tell them what the contributions are, and then see if they will accept those contributions under the guidelines you state.

Perhaps I misunderstood the answers.

On 03/07/2013 09:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Hence my (and others) confusion...

It's a pretty easy question; at it's basic:

    Would code provided under ALv2+MPL+LGPLv3 be acceptable
    to TDF and LO?

On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <> wrote:

back from vacation I stumbled over this interesting thread and for
whatever reason my mail filter skipped Florian's answer.

But after asking if I missed a reply I was pointed on which is an
interesting page to read.

Is it possible that this page is somewhat outdated and doesn't reflect
the current state of the project. I don't read anything about the Apache
License and that the project is now based on the Apache OpenOffice code
base. Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to change the license
header in the way it was done for LO 4.0. Maybe worth to add a section
to explain this and to avoid confusion.

It really confuses me and I am now lost a little bit. How can I as
individual contributor know where the code comes from originally.


On 3/5/13 6:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
an answer from TDF as well.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
any and all responses :)

On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

Hello there.

This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.

Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
general, these people have code that directly patches LO
but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
license their contributions as they see fit. However,
I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
the ASF.

Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.

Thank you.

Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document:

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.