Hi there, On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 09:47 +0100, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > in bug #31633 I proposed a patch to one of the export filters. It looks > like my contribution has been positively received but I have been asked > to explicitly state that my contribution is licensed under the usual MPL > 1.1 / GPLv3 / LGPLv3 and to add the standard LibreOffice license header > to my file.
Right - there are big benefits to having uniform licensing for the whole code-base wherever possible. > While I have no problems with the usual LibO license, I prefer releasing > my contributions under the ISC/OpenBSD license [1]. While it is legally > possible to integrate ISC-licensed code in existing MPL/GPL/LGPL code > bases [2], I would like to have an explicit assurance that using such > licensed code is OK in LibreOffice. Well - as I say; there are problems with lots of scattered licenses. In particular, people can do this to get their personal name / credit into the LICENSES file, which then grows substantially, requires more maintenance, and gives extra credit to those who chose this route etc. (?) :-) > So, the question is: are ISC/BSD-licensed contributions acceptable? In the abstract, yes - I have no problem. Concretely though - are you really trying to give people extra freedoms to the code ? or is there some other aim ? If you want others to be able to get that code under a more liberal licensing; embedding a link to your site in the XSLT where it can be obtained under different terms might be a simpler way - while leaving this copy under the LGPLv3+/MPL. If you're concerned about web-hosting, we could host it for you somewhere permanant perhaps. Does that make sense ? Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice