incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2012 02:05:03 GMT
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 07:07:03PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
>> That "mutual respect" argument can take you in strange places.  For
>> example, if a LibreOffice contributor modifies a file that was
>> originally authored by someone who is now an Apache OpenOffice
>> contributor, then shouldn't they put that file under ALv2, in order to
>> "respect the wishes of contributors caring about the license"?
>
> You mean like for example Oracle changing its mind and not only relicensing
> their own contributions, but also past contributions of others without even
> consulting these authors should force everyone to follow suit(*)? No,

I certainly acknowledge that there are some contributors to OOo who
were not happy that Oracle contributed the code to Apache under ALv2.
But it is also clear that there are some contributors to the legacy
OOo who were happy to see this change, and who have joined the Apache
OpenOffice project and signed the ICLA and contribute.  And there are
some legacy contributors who are members both of TDF and AOO.  I
assume their views on licensing are more flexible than yours.  And I
imagine that there are some that think it was a bad thing to accept
MPL for LibreOffice at all.

So back to my question, which you did not answer.   If a LibreOffice
contributor modifies a file that was originally authored by someone
who is now an Apache OpenOffice contributor (i.e., someone who has
signed the ICLA and joined the AOO project), then shouldn't the LO
contributor put their modifications under ALv2 as well, in order to
"respect the wishes of contributors caring about the license"?  It
seems this would be the right thing to do, given your arguments above.

-Rob

> fortunately the beauty of a license -- intentionally chosen by the author at
> the time -- is that it gives you the freedom _not_ to be forced to do so
> because the rights once given cant be revoked and thus the license is a source
> of security and sustainability for everyone.
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>
> (*) Or as asked so eloquently elsewhere:
> "And Oracle's private conversations, and their decisions regarding OOo contrary
> to the community, were somehow acceptable?"
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201201.mbox/%3CCABD8fLWRDfcABcwyKOsVBpWagkQPoihzkn=DY13U=3bKjPZekw@mail.gmail.com%3E

Mime
View raw message