On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:42:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code
to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed
(alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct?
That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a matter of
community, not just of license. Such combinations of licenses do not lead to a
contribution being automatically accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at
TDF, we look at each case on its merits.
That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question
is whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless*
of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. For example,
if a patch was single-licensed under the GPL, AOO would reject it,
because it is incompatible with the conditions on which AOO itself
is licensed as well as because the social contract which AOO tries
to create. A patch under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 would be fine, license-wise,
and would not be rejected out-of-hand. At that point, the patch would
either be accepted or rejected based on the technical merits, and
not on any "social" aspects.
The anonymous contacts you claim to represent should step forward and work on
the dev list where I am sure their genuine needs will be accommodated flexibly.
"claim to represent"... Ah, good strategy. Instead of addressing
the question, simply pretend that the question itself is
"invalid" or that the person who is asking it has ulterior
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity
of the contacts, but that should not matter. The question
is valid and should be easy enough to answer: would LO/TDF
treat a patch/contribution under alv2-mpl-lgplv2 *ANY* different
than a patch under "just" mpl-lgplv3.
It's a simple question. The very fact that I've been
unable to get a simple answer should be proof-positive
that others that I "claim to represent" also have been
unable to get a clear, official answer as well.
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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code · Simon Phipps
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