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

How could you possibly infer from any earlier answer that
triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused? Like Andrew
Pitonyak I  read exactly the opposite.

Florian said that in the sort of theoretical argument you're
attempting, "code under a triple license is just as acceptable" and
explained why, just as at Apache, the actual acceptability of any
contribution in practical terms is about much more than just the
copyright license.  I struggle to see how that could be misunderstood,
especially by someone I know to be highly intelligent and experienced.


On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, 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?
If so, what, exactly, is the reason?


On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger <> wrote:

Hi Jim,

Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05:

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.

as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to LibreOffice and be part of our 
community, we require a dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for contributions, which gives everyone the 
benefit of the strong rights these licenses grant. From time to time, depending on the specific 
case and the quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces of code with 
compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on its merits.

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
In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In practice, however, TDF has 
hundreds of affiliated developers working as a team together, doing the actual code review and 
acceptance work. There is a spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing 
project. Many core developers may be less inclined to invest their time into significant, 
active assistance: mentoring, reviewing, finding code pointers, merging, back porting, and so 
on, for functionality that will not provide a distinctive value for LibreOffice.

So, while there may be many possible acceptable variations of inbound license and 
contributions, there are likely relational consequences of those choices that are hard to 
quantify. Having said that, all developers who want to contribute constructively to LibreOffice 
are welcome in our community, and we have a high degree of flexibility to fulfill their genuine 
needs. The best thing to do is just to point them to our developers list.


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.