incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2011 22:29:03 GMT
+1

On 4 Jun 2011 23:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:

I have trouble imagining MPL'd binaries being baked into an Apache offering.

1.  For now, it doesn't matter.  At the moment, there are no separable MPL'd
bits into something like reusable libraries at all.  There is simply no
re-licensing of LibreOffice (especially the still-significant LGPL parts and
derivatives that are from OpenOffice.org and that are not relicenseable at
all).

2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly
awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single
platform and programming model.  In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up
C++ and the Java dependencies are shrinking.  And for a reference
implementation, or the parts of Apache OpenOffice that could serve that
purpose, I don't think that will fly at all.

 - Dennis

PS: NEW SPECULATIVE TOPIC.  If the Apache Incubator has all of the code base
of OpenOffice.org that is covered by the Oracle copyright, its being
available under AFL 2.0 is a *benefit* to LibreOffice.  In that case,
LibreOffice can re-acquire the AFL 2.0 bits and, for what is reasonably
re-integrateable under the already-restructured LibreOffice code base, have
that be the basis for relicensing the LibreOffice derivative as MPL or
LGPL3+/MPL (or whatever combination of reciprocal licenses that tickles
their fancy).  Short of a separate *permissive* license grant from Oracle
directly to The Document Foundation, I don't see any other way for
LibreOffice to have anything but LGPL3+ in our lifetimes.  The Apache
OpenOffice availability is an avenue for LibreOffice changing its
(multi-)licensing if and when it chooses to do so (though, like all good
comedy, timing is everything).  [There are details to manage with regard to
code provenance in order to pull this off, but it should work and managing
code provenance is a good idea either way.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]

Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 14:36
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OO/LO License

[ ... ]  Components and extensions with difficult IP provenance OOo might
not have a place under the ASL. If LO/TDP were willing to package such
components in, for example, an MPL licensed LO binary library, then the
Apache OO podling or project might use these as a part of OOo until it makes
the decision to replace it with other code.

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message