www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MPLv2 on AL2 header review ...
Date Wed, 30 May 2012 09:20:26 GMT
On May 30, 2012 4:35 AM, "Michael Meeks" <michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
> Hi Benson.
> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 10:19 -0400, Benson Margulies wrote:
> >...
> > Roy's email, I think, disputes the notion that these initial
> > mechanical changes actually create derived works. His email focussed
> > on the copyright and license of *the modifications*, not the whole
> > thing. Of course, I may just be confused.
>        More likely it is me that is confused :-) However, I believe the
> (C) aspect is an unrelated, and now closed red-herring.

It would seem that all the commits made under the TDF CLA (ISTR you had one
for your committers; and wow... three acronyms in a row... do I win?) are
licensed to the TDF under MPLv2. The rest of LO is under ALv2 post-rebasing.

If you *stop* using a CLA, then it seems the arriving commits fall under
section 5 of ALv2, as Contributions, and become licensed that way.

And regardless of any CLA, you can claim your derivative Work under MPLv2
with portions under ALv2. And a question of how much, especially
going-forward is ALv2 vs MPLv2.

(and a secondary issue of how to describe copyright ownership, if at all)


View raw message