Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1325687880.31665.YahooMailClassic@web113514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 06:38:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Reply-To: pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed
 code
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <4F044D22.80303@googlemail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A--- Mer 4/1/12, J=FCrgen Schmidt ha scritto:=0A...=0A> >=0A> are you sur=
e? For me this special situation seems to be a=0A> little bit different. Ei=
ther you go forward with the old=0A> code and the old license header and ca=
n't merge to the new=0A> code. Or you move forward with the new one and kee=
p the new=0A> license headers and put your change on a different =0A> licen=
se. Where you would make the difference which code is=0A> from which code b=
ase. For me it sounds practical impossible=0A> because the many thousand fi=
les with more or less the same=0A> code.=0A>=0A=0AThe problem is that TDF, =
or whomever adopts the Apache OO=0Aheaders, doesn't own the modified (MPL/L=
GPL3) code so even=0Aif they wanted they can not make it AL2. What will hap=
pen=0Ais that the code will keep the MPL/LGPL3 restrictions in=0Aaddition t=
o the AL2.=0A=0ANevertheless there will be two consequences:=0A- They can h=
ave all their code uniformly under LGPL3/MPL2=0Adual license. The LGPL bein=
g so commercially unfriendly,=0Athis practically means they will be MPL2, w=
ith the LGPL3=0Abeing purely nominal.=0A- They will have to carry the AL2 l=
icense among their code=0Aand headers, and the clause 5 is particularly nic=
e to have.=0A=0AIf you add these two points, and this is all IMHO, the=0Agr=
eat loser in all this is the FSF that lost the strong=0Acopyleft over the f=
lag opensource Office suite.=0A=0A> =0A> It is really a special situation, =
isn't it. It would be=0A> interesting to =0A> hear what a lawyer things abo=
ut it.=0A> =0A=0AOh .. I am not a lawyer, so it was all meant IMHO :).=0A=
=0Acheers,=0A=0APedro.