incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TJ Frazier <tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com>
Subject Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:47:19 GMT
On 1/16/2012 10:28, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> 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<michael.meeks@suse.com>  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
>> MPL/LGPL3
>>> 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:
>      http://cantrip.org/stupidity.html
>
> (BTW, Anyone has a link to the original in italian?)
>
> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/Allegro-non-troppo-Contrappunti-Italian/dp/8815019804/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1/185-0371021-4419420

A commercial link, but maybe a good starting point.
-- 
/tj/


Mime
View raw message