On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply
boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at
all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of
the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change
the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3
as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore
it does not describe the actual mechanism.
On the contrary, the answer to your original question was clearly that the
inclusion of ALv2 in the licensing of a contribution does not per se
prevent it being used.
You have then been given a more detailed response than appears to have come
from the AOO PMC: that licensing alone is not sufficient for an open source
project to accept any given contribution.
I don't understand why you continue to agitate and accuse.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code · Simon Phipps
[tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code · Jürgen Schmidt
- Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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