Oracle required copyright assignment and had all the rights it needed to license the code base to the ASF. That is a different conversation than the honoring of licenses and directing ones contributions under one license or another.
- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Bjoern Michaelsen [mailto:bjoern.michael...@canonical.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 17:11 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Question related derivative code based on our Apache licensed code Hi Rob, On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 07:07:03PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: > That "mutual respect" argument can take you in strange places. For > example, if a LibreOffice contributor modifies a file that was > originally authored by someone who is now an Apache OpenOffice > contributor, then shouldn't they put that file under ALv2, in order to > "respect the wishes of contributors caring about the license"? You mean like for example Oracle changing its mind and not only relicensing their own contributions, but also past contributions of others without even consulting these authors should force everyone to follow suit(*)? No, fortunately the beauty of a license -- intentionally chosen by the author at the time -- is that it gives you the freedom _not_ to be forced to do so because the rights once given cant be revoked and thus the license is a source of security and sustainability for everyone. Best, Bjoern (*) Or as asked so eloquently elsewhere: "And Oracle's private conversations, and their decisions regarding OOo contrary to the community, were somehow acceptable?" http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201201.mbox/%3CCABD8fLWRDfcABcwyKOsVBpWagkQPoihzkn=DY13U=3bkjpz...@mail.gmail.com%3E
