openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Apache licence vs cc-by-sa
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2017 21:32:51 GMT
Hi Guy,

I see that you found that the Apache License 2.0 is very permissive.

If use of your images in Apache projects like OpenOffice are desired then you may want to
see to understand how various other Open Source
licenses may or may not be used within an Apache release.

Of course you are free to release your material under as many licenses as you wish which allows
others to reuse under the license of their choice.

Best Regards,

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 1:39 PM, Guy Waterval <> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have decided since for a while, to publish only under an Apache license
> all the photos that I upload to Wikimedia Commons, because they are
> destinated to an uni which will select those to integrate to its internal
> photographic collection. For this reason, I wish delivery the material with
> a maximum reusability, without any problem..
> For instance, I want to avoid that if some of my images shoud be inserted
> in a document (thesis or other works), they couldn't influence the
> conditions of use of the created document. I want to allow the author of
> the final document to choose whether to publish his document under a free
> license or not. Of course the internal parts under ALV2.0 are to be
> announced by a notice in the global document.
> Others tell me that it's also possible to do that with internal parts
> (texts or images) licenced under a cc-by-sa. But for me, a composite
> document integrating parts (images or texts) under a cc-by-sa license has
> to be licensed globally under cc-by-sa only, because this licence is not a
> permissive one. To be OK, a cc-by and not a cc-by-sa should be used in this
> case.
> Thanks for your advices
> gw
> <>
> Garanti
> sans virus.
> <>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

View raw message