On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Kinda hard to claim you own all the rights to > > a patch when in 99% of the situations it's merely > a derivative work of the thing you produced the > patch from. > > In any case if the patch will be applicable to > either codebase, and the author of the patch > deems it appropriate to include in either of > them, there is no need to haggle further over > it, from either camp. >
I think that's the key point. The cases where it would not work from the license perspective are the same cases where it would not work from the technical perspective. Any useful patch could be applied to both AOO and LO would be a patch to the common OOo base code. > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> >>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >>Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 7:01 PM >>Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed >>code >> >>On 16 January 2012 23:40, Bjoern Michaelsen >><bjoern.michael...@canonical.com> wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 03:51:26PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> As far as I can tell, there is nothing that would prevent an >>>> individual developer from submitting a patch to this mailing list or >>>> to the LO mailing list and saying it was available AL2 or MPL/LGPL at >>>> the receiver's election. >>> >>> Only if you are willing to ignore the rights of previous contributors upon >>> whose work the patch is based and who contributed their work as >>> MPL/LGPL/GPL. >> >>Although Rob didn't say it he actually meant "an individual developer >>from submitting a patch ***to which they own all rights***" >> >>Ross >> >> >>
