incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Rist <>
Subject Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:33:10 GMT
On 1/4/2012 6:38 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> --- Mer 4/1/12, J├╝rgen Schmidt ha scritto:
> ...
>> are you sure? For me this special situation seems to be a
>> little bit different. Either you go forward with the old
>> code and the old license header and can't merge to the new
>> code. Or you move forward with the new one and keep the new
>> license headers and put your change on a different
>> license. Where you would make the difference which code is
>> from which code base. For me it sounds practical impossible
>> because the many thousand files with more or less the same
>> code.
> The problem is that TDF, or whomever adopts the Apache OO
> headers, doesn't own the modified (MPL/LGPL3) code so even
> if they wanted they can not make it AL2. What will happen
> is that the code will keep the MPL/LGPL3 restrictions in
> addition to the AL2.
I think most of the LO code is just under LGPL, with only their 
additions being dual licensed under MPL  (I don't think they can 
relicense the LGPL code).
In a similar way, (as I understand it) LO will be able to use ALv2 
licensed code - but not relicense it.

> Nevertheless there will be two consequences:
> - They can have all their code uniformly under LGPL3/MPL2
> dual license. The LGPL being so commercially unfriendly,
> this practically means they will be MPL2, with the LGPL3
> being purely nominal.
> - They will have to carry the AL2 license among their code
> and headers, and the clause 5 is particularly nice to have.
> If you add these two points, and this is all IMHO, the
> great loser in all this is the FSF that lost the strong
> copyleft over the flag opensource Office suite.
>> It is really a special situation, isn't it. It would be
>> interesting to
>> hear what a lawyer things about it.
> Oh .. I am not a lawyer, so it was all meant IMHO :).
> cheers,
> Pedro.

View raw message