incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:51:26 GMT
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Michael Meeks <> wrote:
> 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 what sense do you mean "our code"?  Is that the "royal we" or are
you speaking on behalf of Suse?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that would prevent an
individual developer from submitting a patch to this mailing list or
to the LO mailing list and saying it was available AL2 or MPL/LGPL at
the receiver's election.

These are the rights that creative people have over their creative
works, that they own the copyright and can assign permissions pretty
much as they wish.  Unless, of course, TDF/LO intends to institute
some sort of CLA that would prohibit the author of code to share it as
they wish?

>> - 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/.

Understood.  But (and correct me if I am mistaken) the TDF
infrastructure is not managed by or on behalf of the Free Software
Foundation or the Mozilla Foundation, but still your users opt to send
declarations like the following to your mailing list:

So the org that runs your website and the org that wrote the license
are no necessarily connected, and it is rather silly to confuse them.

In any case it would be trivial for a developer to add ("as well as
Apache License v2") to such a statement.  If that is not clear to
developers, then maybe I can help make this fact better known.

>        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.
>        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 :-)

Well, that's one reason we have pseudonyms.

>        So - any expansion on "is particularly nice to have" would be helpful
> Pedro - why do you think this is particularly nice ? :-)
>        All the best,
>                Michael.
> --
>  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

View raw message