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 dennis.hamilton@acm.org
 designates 216.119.133.2 as permitted sender)
Reply-To: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
To: <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
References: 
 <CAC=mJXcAqzqCHMTaVCUodxRJ=M0zUzUPkAamE=hS5WS8Y-N=FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksoiqH8WiqodMAwrTQ5RYb_QE+BdtacYepF1gnk=wxaD9Yg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksoiqH8WiqodMAwrTQ5RYb_QE+BdtacYepF1gnk=wxaD9Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:48:55 -0700
Organization: NuovoDoc
Message-ID: <00be01cd261f$96374a60$c2a5df20$@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQE5t87eqv6uI3OMaAm/KUgdcINnCQGzfREbl8srnbA=
Content-Language: en-us

To be precise, the practice is for new contributions to be dual licensed =
as LGPL and MPL by the contributor.  It remains the case that the main =
code body is under LGPL3 with the usual variations for third-party =
material incorporated in the release.

 - Dennis

PS: Personally, I don't see any advantage to the MPL provision, since =
LGPL is not convertible to MPL.  I think there is or was some TDF =
misunderstanding about the possibility of "relicensing."  As far as I =
know, only the owner of copyright has a choice about licensing.  E.g., =
Oracle licensed the OpenOffice.org code base that was under its =
copyright to Apache in a different way than it had licensed to others.  =
That's separate from the general but narrow availability of that code =
under the LGPL from both Sun and Oracle. =20
    The license that code arrives into someone's hands under is the =
license that must be honored, even for public-domain works (which =
require no license and will remain public-domain forever). If a work is =
specifically multi-licensed, one can choose which one(s) to honor.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]=20
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 08:12
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Claudio Filho <filhocf@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am not a lawer but i did a work of licenses some time ago[1], and i
> read many of main licenses, and a thing that i listened in all was
> that only the license holder can changes his work. So, my ask is:
> Oracle gave permission to TDF to add GPL and MPL for LibO?
> =
[1]http://claudiocomputing.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/comparativo-entre-gru=
pos-de-licencas/
>

When LO says they are under MPL, I think they mean that only for new
contributions, where the contributor agreed to place their
contribution under MPL (or whatever).  The remainder of the code, the
original OOo code, is under LGPL.

-Rob

> Or this is a "dead letter", where i can get a software and do what i =
think/wish?
>
> Best,
> Claudio