incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date Tue, 01 May 2012 16:48:39 GMT
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Michael Meeks <> wrote:
> 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
>> <> 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.

We accept relatively small contributions without an ICLA.   But all
contributions get reviewed, and all releases go through scans (what we
call RAT == Release Audit Tool) and are voted on in a transparent,
open process.

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


>        All the best,
>                Michael.
> --
>  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

View raw message