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,

I do not know who made these assertions to this entity, however it is
really important to understand that it was not the Document
Foundation. We have never been in contact with such parties. 

Let me stress again that it is necessary for this entity to contact us
directly.

Thanks,

Charles.  

Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:38:44 -0400,
Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> a écrit :

As stated, they contacted me because they had been
told that such licensing was not accepted to BOTH
parties, not just one. This should have been clear
from my 1st post. That is why I asked both parties.

On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
<charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

Hello Jim,

There's something quite wrong in this conversation. Some entity -a
corporation or a government- has approached you and asked you
questions on how to contribute to LibreOffice (by the way, please
be so kind as using the term "LibreOffice" and not "LO"). 

As the Chairman of the Apache Software Foundation the useful and
effective thing to do is to point this entity directly at the
Document Foundation. It is not up to the ASF to speak on behalf of
the Document Foundation, but you obviously know this as you came
here to ask your question on this mailing list and I thank you for
doing so. At this stage let me reiterate that if this entity you
have mentioned repeatedly has questions about possible
contributions to LibreOffice, these should be directed to the
Document Foundation and not to any other foundation.

For the record, the Document Foundation has not been contacted
(privately or publicly) by anyone but you with respect to a triple
licensing scheme for contributing to LibreOffice. 

Best regards,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz 
Co-founder & Director, The Document Foundation,
Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24.



Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:35:08 -0400,
Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> a écrit :

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.

I will be blunt: it certainly *appears* that all this hand
waving is being done to be able to accept code when
it is beneficial to LO only, and not accept code when
it is beneficial to LO *and* AOO, as code under alv2-mpl-lgplv3
would be, except for small code patches and fixes that
have no real "value". Such a "it depends" policy allows
this, and this is the core of the question. The people who
contacted me specifically wanted to provide code to LO,
that merged with LO w/ no conflicts, would require extensive
re-work to be folded into AOO, but would be licensed under
the alv2 and were told that the inclusion of the alv2
as the license of the donation was unacceptable. When
asked if dual or triple licensing was acceptable, they
were told No. To them, it appeared that the *mere
possibility* that it could be used by AOO, even though
their people are being paid to work on LO, was enough
to prevent their work being even considered.

Will the ASF and AOO accept code licensed in such a way
that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is yes.

Will the TDF and LO accept code licensed in such a way
that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is
"it depends"... the logical assumption regarding WHY is
not-complimentary to TDF and LO, nor is it beneficial to
the OO ecosystem itself, nor is the policy defined enough
that code providers know what to do.

On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens
<thb@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

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









-- 
Charles-H. Schulz 
Co-founder & Director, The Document Foundation,
Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24.

-- 
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.