Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:40:04 +0100
From: Bjoern Michaelsen <bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed
 code
Message-ID: <20120116234004.GA2226@berrylium>
References: <1325687880.31665.YahooMailClassic@web113514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <1326717102.6790.93.camel@linux-yjtf.site>
 <CAP-ksoi9xepqCPupMDBKk6PhFtStTN3JqztFs76AUg_TLwJ8kg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksoi9xepqCPupMDBKk6PhFtStTN3JqztFs76AUg_TLwJ8kg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

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.
Some LibreOffice contributors care very much about not carelessly giving away
their contribution AL-licensed, while others contribute to the LibreOffice
project for its openness, features and agility. Mutual respect requires to
respect the wishes of contributors caring about the license, which was one
important founding principles of the project, as well as we care for the other
values put down in the manifesto of the document foundation.

Best,

Bjoern