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: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com
 designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1326758790.96560.YahooMailNeo@web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
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>
 <1326758790.96560.YahooMailNeo@web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:11:26 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CAKQbXgBJ5jL06xi8y1ECRuRox-n3JvAwMN=KXMz7otvQk2WC+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed
 code
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 17 January 2012 00:06, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

heh - good point. I think I was assuming we were talking about a patch
from a shared code-base, e.g. the original Sun/Oracle code. However,
you are right as things diverge this will become less and less the
common.

> 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.

Also true.

Ross

>
>>________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com