incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:28:00 GMT
Hi Michael;

Just to be clear ...
I am not a lawyer, and even if I were whatever I say in
respect to licensing doesn't have any legal permission
or state any rule wrt what should be done.

just to make that clear :).

--- Lun 16/1/12, Michael Meeks <> ha scritto:

> Hi Pedro,
> On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 06:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > What will happen is that the code will keep the
> > restrictions in addition to the AL2.
>     That would be the plan; though our code
> will -emphatically- not be
> available under the AL2; only an MPL/LGPLv3+ [as well as
> any lingering terms from the AL2].

In the projects I participate we never *ever* replace a
license, we just add a copyright header with our license
when relevant. I would expect LO will have to comply
with AL2, adding the respective restrictions imposed
by your own licensing scheme (MPL/GPL).

> > - They will have to carry the AL2 license among their
> code
> > and headers, and the clause 5 is particularly nice to
> have.
>     Clause five of the AL2 is:
>     "5. Submission of Contributions. Unless
> You explicitly state
>      otherwise, any Contribution
> intentionally submitted for
>      inclusion in the Work by You
> to the Licensor shall be under the
>      terms and conditions of this
> License, without any additional
>      terms or conditions.
> Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein
>      shall supersede or modify the
> terms of any separate license
>      agreement you may have
> executed with Licensor regarding such
>      Contributions."
>     IANAL, but to create a superabundance of
> clarity - no contribution
> submitted to LibreOffice is a 'Contribution'. It is not
> submitted to
> 'Licensor' which is ASF (cf. definition of Contribution).
> The TDF
> infrastructure is not /managed by, or on behalf of, the
> ASF/.

Issue 5 only applies to contributions made to the Apache
project. Surely the code that has been contributed to LO
cannot be taken by us unless the author specifically
authorizes sends it to us too.

>     If it would help to clarify this, we can
> add a "Not a contribution"
> line or similar language to our new (MPL/LGPL)onAL2 header
> as/when we've got that worked through.

This type of sillyness, attempting to obfuscate the language,
is one of the reasons why I keep away from projects with
unreadable licenses.

>     Of course, individuals are quite at
> liberty to choose to license their
> contributions to the ASF if they so choose, and to include
> -their- code
> into either project; though that is something I'd
> personally
> discourage :-)
>     So - any expansion on "is particularly
> nice to have" would be helpful
> Pedro - why do you think this is particularly nice ? :-)

It is really nice because in this project we don't request
silly licensing statements. We assume people are not
stupid enough to send us code that we can't use. Here
the term "stupid" has the same connotation as defined in
Carlo Cipola's classical paper:

(BTW, Anyone has a link to the original in italian?)



View raw message