Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 05:42:14 PM: > > So yah. I'm giving up on this for now. My suggestions are hitting a > teflon wall. But it shouldn't. Including the LO community in this > proposal should be a no-brainer. I don't think that "including them by > reference [to the Apache License]" is a cop-out. Several times, you > fallen back to "but they can just use the code like anybody else". But > they're AREN'T ANYBODY ELSE. >
But I'm not giving up on you, Greg, or this section of the proposal. I am attaching this section of the proposal as it stands now. Would you or anyone else like to contribute any improvements? Personal attacks, please, to /dev/null. Regards, -Rob LibreOffice uses a dual license LGPLv3/MPL. This limits the degree to which OpenOffice and LibreOffice can collaborate on code. However, we would be glad to discuss, as a project, ways in which we can collaborate with them in a way that respects the chosen licenses of both projects. This could include collaboration on jointly sponsored public events, interoperability 'plugfests', standards, shared build management infrastructure, shared release mirrors, coordination of build schedules, version numbers, defect lists, and other downstream requirements. Additionally, collaboration could include LibreOffice use of project deliverables per the Apache 2.0 license and their reporting of defects. If TDF decides at a later point to change to a compatible license, then this would open up additional ways in which we could collaborate, and we would welcome that as well. We believe that, in practice, the degree to which we are able to actually collaborate will be determined by the licence compatibility issue more than than any unwillingness to collaborate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
