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

Since you answered a different question and continue to allege your
question has not been answered, I will ask again:

How could you infer *from any earlier answer* that triple-licensed
contributions would be inherently refused as you allege? Like
Andrew Pitonyak and Jonathon Blake I read exactly the opposite in the
multiple, detailed answers you've received.


On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

"How could I infer"? Because, as I stated, it was
*specifically* inferred to other entities who subsequently
asked me if I knew the "real" answer.

As such, I specifically asked the 2 controlling bodies of
the 2 projects. I rec'd a responses quickly from AOO, but
none was coming from LO, and therefore I had to broaden
my "contact" on that end, and was even directed/suggested
to do so, which I did.

The ASF and AOO have no issue with patches which are
dual-licensed (alv2-lgplv3) or triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3).
They are on records as saying so. I am simply seeing if
TDF and LO are just as willing. So far, more time has been
spent on bypassing the question than simply answering it.

On Mar 10, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:

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


*Simon Phipps*
*Meshed Insights & Knowledge *
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816*

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.