On 17 January 2012 00:06, 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.
heh - good point. I think I was assuming we were talking about a patch from a shared code-base, e.g. the original Sun/Oracle code. However, you are right as things diverge this will become less and less the common. > 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. Also true. Ross > >>________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
