Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of simon@webmink.com designates
 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender)
Subject: Re: OO/LO License (Was: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal:
 Collaboration with TDF/LO)
References: <BANLkTikj5KX4dZ3VU3Ds92RUe-ymM2iN7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTim5ic1103SV_MbZGy+ovP0MC3OLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim5ic1103SV_MbZGy+ovP0MC3OLEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5E95351A-0A0C-4428-91FF-D8BDB8048A21@webmink.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 12:37:17 +0100
To: "general@incubator.apache.org" <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8J3)


On 4 Jun 2011, at 12:09, Simos Xenitellis <simos.lists@googlemail.com> wrote=
:

> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
> <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Excuse me for interrupting ...
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL.
>>=20
>> I've been reading MPL a few times in this discussion. But neither
>>=20
>>    http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/
>>=20
>> nor
>>=20
>>   http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
>>=20
>> are mentioning the MPL. What's right?
>>=20
>=20
> I believe that during the talks between Robert and LibreOffice,
> LibreOffice asked to have the freed OpenOffice relicensed to LGPLv3/MPL,
> so that the wrongs are fixed and everyone is happy.
> But Robert got confused and says above that LibreOffice is already
> licensed under the LGPLv3/MPL.

I believe it's a bit more complex than that. The following is my understandi=
ng of the history and situation, I'd welcome corrections where I have misund=
erstood or misremembered or my summary omits key details.

IBM has been trying for years to get the OOo code put back under a permissiv=
e license. It used to be under SISSL (a now-deprecated permissive open sourc=
e license) and LGPLv2, and in those days IBM was free to build Symphony with=
out any reference to OOo. Its worth noting that they never contributed any c=
ode at all to the community when OOo was under that permissive license.

Once OOo licensing was updated to LGPLv3 only, IBM could no longer operate i=
n this way. There were extensive negotiations, first on a semi-open communit=
y basis and then between Sun and IBM. The result was apparently a private li=
censing arrangement. Under that arrangement, IBM was again able to use the O=
Oo code. Under this arrangement, they also contributed very little code (alt=
hough at least a bit).

In discussions with community members before the fork, IBMs representatives i=
ndicated that if the code project was licensed under a weak copyleft license=
 like MPL or CDDL, they would be able and willing to both use it and work wi=
thin the community.

In order to ensure IBM would be able to participate in LibreOffice in the ev=
ent the rest of the code was relicensed in a way they could accept, the comm=
unity there has ensured that contributions have been made under both MPL and=
 LGPLv3. Since the inbound code LibreOffice uses is currently mainly under L=
GPLv3, LibreOffice is licensed under LGPLv3 outbound at present even though i=
nbound new contributions are under both licenses.

This, by the way, is the source of some of the irritation from TDF, who went=
 to a fair bit of trouble to accommodate IBM but have been represented other=
wise on Rob's blog and elsewhere.

Hope that helps,

S.=

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