Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <1325708903.58734.YahooMailNeo@web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1325687880.31665.YahooMailClassic@web113514.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <4F04A976.7080701@oracle.com>
 <D27FCA66-D068-4666-8989-2D1F39491B36@webmink.com>
 <1325708903.58734.YahooMailNeo@web160901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5--487651920
Message-Id: <66BB7F21-D3ED-4161-B228-9691F815259E@free.fr>
From: eric b <eric.bachard@free.fr>
Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed
 code
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 22:18:18 +0100
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org

--Apple-Mail-5--487651920
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=UTF-8;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed

Hi,


Le 4 janv. 12 =C3=A0 21:28, Joe Schaefer a =C3=A9crit :

> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 3:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache =20
>> licensed code
>>
>> On 4 Jan 2012, at 19:33, Andrew Rist wrote:
>>
>>>  In a similar way, (as I understand it) LO will be able to use =20
>>> ALv2 licensed
>> code - but not relicense it.
>>
>> Code can be made available under multiple licenses simultaneously, =20=

>> as long as none of the licenses in force have terms that are =20
>> mutually incompatible. This is especially easy when one of the =20
>> licenses is a permissive license with minimal compliance =20
>> requirements. Thus another project can typically include code =20
>> under a license like AL or BSD and make it available under another =20=

>> license such as
>> LGPLv3.
>
> It depends on how that is actually done: just going in and changing =20=

> licensing on files you have no copyright interest in is actually a =20
> violation of copyright law.
> However if you make substantive modifications to those files, that =20
> derivative work may be licensed under any terms that are compatible =20=

> with the original Apache
> license.
>

Let's try with a concrete example :

OOo4Kids is based on OOo3.2.1 source code, under LGPLv3 license. =20
Apache OpenOffice is based on DEV300_m106 (really different)


Imagine now I'm integrating the great SVG native feature Armin wrote. =20=

After two weeks of work (currently fixing sfx2 chaos), it appears =20
that the most simple (sigh) is to partialy and incrementaly rebase =20
the concerned code + the dependencies with Apache OpenOffice tree.

Concretely, to achieve that, I modified a lot of code, say around 30 =20
to 40 modules - over ~180 - , like (cppuhelper, comphelper, basegfx, =20
canvas, tools, svtools, toolkit, transex3, svx, sfx2, vcl, =20
drawinglayer, framework, offapi and so on). For some modules (e.g. =20
offapi) the interface was modified a lot, some dllapi were added etc, =20=

and the most simple for me is to copy the new files from Apache OOo, =20
to the OOo4Kids tree, at the right location (or a no one if not =20
existing. Next step consists in fix build issue after build issue. =20
e.g. in comphelper, basegfx and cppuhelper, occured some other =20
extremely important changes, causing a lot of issues in other =20
modules. Plus svl introduction is a nightmare (zillion of #include =20
<svl/something.hxx> to be fixed) if I do not create it and so on.

If I add that I'd like to keep the dmake system (working well, on all =20=

OSs), I even have to modify the tree, adding svgio, svl, cui, =20
editeng, and maybe other modules (I probably forgot some, sorry)


Back to license issue :  I didn't know exactly what do, but I was =20
lazy so I directly replaced the file containing LGPLv3 headers, with =20
the one containing AL headers.

At some other locations, I just adapted Armin changes manually =20
(original one from Armin will never apply). Yet at some others, I =20
perfecly know how to proceed, without look at the Apache code/files : =20=

e.g. move goodies filters in filter, create editeng, and all the =20
mandatory makefiles and so on. Yet at other places, I did not add =20
some useless void functions added in meantime, but empty and doing =20
nothing serious and so on***

I forgot:  I didn't commit anything yet, waiting for information =20
(thanks to J=C3=BCrgen who asked the question at the right moment ! )

My question is : am I wrong somewhere (I meant on the license side, =20
not on the code side), and if so, what shall I do exactly to respect =20
every license ?    :-)


Thanks in advance,
Eric Bachard


*** the only mystery I'll have to solve, is to understand exactly =20
what I'll have to modify to use new config manager though. The =20
problem is : I'm not able to extract the diffs when the cws was =20
integrated, maybe my fault ...

--=20
q=C9=94=E1=B4=89=C9=B9=C9=99
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news


--Apple-Mail-5--487651920--