Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=G1vyLXwiWXOKSnStB1kGs61RzDmmUhsG/bNN7mr01lUmwJmHtN/KeKVnXAotO71wGXq+cE3SXGgMmy/B+wTv/LBu7+ED9I8F+ILYFSXb55bX3RhtLel5Aqjb5ItNpKN6/Umi+z0rpBA5DGuOcek/T+UaSptR7lh/1idwLyPWWAo=;
References: <1325687880.31665.YahooMailClassic@web113514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <1326717102.6790.93.camel@linux-yjtf.site>
 <CAP-ksoi9xepqCPupMDBKk6PhFtStTN3JqztFs76AUg_TLwJ8kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120116234004.GA2226@berrylium>
 <CAKQbXgCx+4xR9fQ5Ne+DeGZ6FVzVs7W4FegRCu_HPqyXbMyFhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1326758790.96560.YahooMailNeo@web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:06:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed
 code
To: "ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org" <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKQbXgCx+4xR9fQ5Ne+DeGZ6FVzVs7W4FegRCu_HPqyXbMyFhw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="-285128509-1836093213-1326758790=:96560"

---285128509-1836093213-1326758790=:96560
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Kinda hard to claim you own all the rights to 

a patch when in 99% of the situations it's merely
a derivative work of the thing you produced the
patch from.

In any case if the patch will be applicable to
either codebase, and the author of the patch
deems it appropriate to include in either of
them, there is no need to haggle further over
it, from either camp.


>________________________________
> From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
>Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:01 PM
>Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code
> 
>On 16 January 2012 23:40, Bjoern Michaelsen
><bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 03:51:26PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Only if you are willing to ignore the rights of previous contributors upon
>> whose work the patch is based and who contributed their work as MPL/LGPL/GPL.
>
>Although Rob didn't say it he actually meant "an individual developer
>from submitting a patch ***to which they own all rights***"
>
>Ross
>
>
>
---285128509-1836093213-1326758790=:96560--