incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date Tue, 01 May 2012 19:10:46 GMT
On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> ...
>> For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order.  Ditto for
>> smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns.  Remember, any
>> committer can veto a patch.  So incoming patches without an ICLA need
>> to meet a high bar to get into the code.  My default posture would be
>> to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an
>> iCLA.
> really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ?

I committed it so I will answer what is my personal position on this.

The patches were submitted to Oracle which provided the bugzilla
dump to us. At the time the patches were committed, the codebase
was under LGPLv3. The license for the code headers were later
changed by Oracle in hands of Andrew Rist.

In all this process, people that have submitted patches were notified
through bugzilla that we were integrating the code and one person
even went ahead and requested his patch were reverted (and I did
it despite considering the patch was not copyrightable).

I should also mention that I did a sweep through bugzilla and warned
all the coders I found that were explicitly licensing their contribution
under an unacceptable license: some of them relicensed and the rest
were closed.

best regards,


> Norbert

View raw message