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

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


Jim Jagielski wrote:
Bjoern Michaelsen <bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com> wrote:
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.

Hi Jim,

Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email:

On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote:
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.

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.


Jim Jagielski wrote:
Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity
of the contacts, but that should not matter.

I understand, but in general we like to work directly with those
contributing the code, rather than dealing in hypotheticals.

With kind regards,

-- Thorsten

-- 
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

Context


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.