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