incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:32:10 GMT
I'm having a hard time following your English prose, but I'll take a
stab at it...


So the situation you find yourself in is that you are making use of LGPL'd
code (OOo 3.2.1), and in the interests of porting over OOo4Kids to Apache OpenOffice
you need to take portions of that 3.2.1 codebase and commit it back to Apache's
subversion repo?

If so, the answer is that you can only commit back the changes to the original
codebase that *you* made to it, assuming as you claim that the changes are
significantly different from what's currently in our subversion repo.  You
should not commit back code from OOo 3.2.1 that is not either your own work
or significantly different from what's already in the subversion repo.
(Sorry for the double negatives there).

Does that answer your question?



----- Original Message -----
> From: eric b <eric.bachard@free.fr>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Le 4 janv. 12 à 21:28, Joe Schaefer a écrit :
> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> 
>>>  From: Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com>
>>>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>  Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:22 PM
>>>  Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache 
> licensed code
>>> 
>>>  On 4 Jan 2012, at 19:33, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>> 
>>>>   In a similar way, (as I understand it) LO will be able to use ALv2 
> licensed
>>>  code - but not relicense it.
>>> 
>>>  Code can be made available under multiple licenses simultaneously, as 
> long as none of the licenses in force have terms that are mutually incompatible. 
> This is especially easy when one of the licenses is a permissive license with 
> minimal compliance requirements. Thus another project can typically include code 
> under a license like AL or BSD and make it available under another license such 
> as
>>>  LGPLv3.
>> 
>>  It depends on how that is actually done: just going in and changing 
> licensing on files you have no copyright interest in is actually a violation of 
> copyright law.
>>  However if you make substantive modifications to those files, that 
> derivative work may be licensed under any terms that are compatible with the 
> original Apache
>>  license.
>> 
> 
> Let's try with a concrete example :
> 
> OOo4Kids is based on OOo3.2.1 source code, under LGPLv3 license. Apache 
> OpenOffice is based on DEV300_m106 (really different)
> 
> 
> Imagine now I'm integrating the great SVG native feature Armin wrote. After 
> two weeks of work (currently fixing sfx2 chaos), it appears that the most simple 
> (sigh) is to partialy and incrementaly rebase the concerned code + the 
> dependencies with Apache OpenOffice tree.
> 
> Concretely, to achieve that, I modified a lot of code, say around 30 to 40 
> modules - over ~180 - , like (cppuhelper, comphelper, basegfx, canvas, tools, 
> svtools, toolkit, transex3, svx, sfx2, vcl, drawinglayer, framework, offapi and 
> so on). For some modules (e.g. offapi) the interface was modified a lot, some 
> dllapi were added etc, and the most simple for me is to copy the new files from 
> Apache OOo, to the OOo4Kids tree, at the right location (or a no one if not 
> existing. Next step consists in fix build issue after build issue. e.g. in 
> comphelper, basegfx and cppuhelper, occured some other extremely important 
> changes, causing a lot of issues in other modules. Plus svl introduction is a 
> nightmare (zillion of #include <svl/something.hxx> to be fixed) if I do 
> not create it and so on.
> 
> If I add that I'd like to keep the dmake system (working well, on all OSs), 
> I even have to modify the tree, adding svgio, svl, cui, editeng, and maybe other 
> modules (I probably forgot some, sorry)
> 
> 
> Back to license issue :  I didn't know exactly what do, but I was lazy so I 
> directly replaced the file containing LGPLv3 headers, with the one containing AL 
> headers.
> 
> At some other locations, I just adapted Armin changes manually (original one 
> from Armin will never apply). Yet at some others, I perfecly know how to 
> proceed, without look at the Apache code/files : e.g. move goodies filters in 
> filter, create editeng, and all the mandatory makefiles and so on. Yet at other 
> places, I did not add some useless void functions added in meantime, but empty 
> and doing nothing serious and so on***
> 
> I forgot:  I didn't commit anything yet, waiting for information (thanks to 
> Jürgen who asked the question at the right moment ! )
> 
> My question is : am I wrong somewhere (I meant on the license side, not on the 
> code side), and if so, what shall I do exactly to respect every license ?    :-)
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric Bachard
> 
> 
> 
> *** the only mystery I'll have to solve, is to understand exactly what 
> I'll have to modify to use new config manager though. The problem is : 
> I'm not able to extract the diffs when the cws was integrated, maybe my 
> fault ...
> 
> --qɔᴉɹə
> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
> 

Mime
View raw message