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

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.

S.


On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> 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 <simon@webmink.com> 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.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> 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?
> > >
> > > tia!
> > >
> > > On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger <
> florian@effenberger.org> 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.
> > > > Florian


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

-- 
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