incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Meeks <michael.me...@suse.com>
Subject Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date Tue, 01 May 2012 16:38:10 GMT
Hi Rob,

On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 12:08 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> But the "practice" is not backed by a CLA or a code audit.

	Interesting to see you laying down the facts about what happens in
LibreOffice land :-)

>   So what exactly LO has is "license soup" as far as I am concerned.

	The situation is reasonably simple currently; yet it is of course made
un-necessarily difficult by IBM & Oracle's insistence on choosing yet
another project and license for some ill-defined subset of the available
code; yet it will get unwound.

On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 10:41 -0700, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I have no idea how the TDF deals with provenance.  None of us do
> anything to confirm that a contribution is original (in the copyright
> sense) and the contributor has the right. Acceptance is in good faith.
 
	Dennis speaks much sense. IIRC you guys accept patches 'submitted' to
Apache without a CLA; using the AL2 'Contribution' language - which
makes sense to me. That however is conceptually rather similar to our
approach, opening the door in just the same way for being an unwitting
victim of incompetence or bad-faith from a submitter.

	All the best,

		Michael.

-- 
michael.meeks@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


Mime
View raw message