Hi Rob, On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 09:05:03PM -0500, Rob Weir wrote: > I assume their views on licensing are more flexible than yours.
My personal view on licensing is very liberal: In general, as long as it is open and forkable, I personally am good because a possible fork will either keep everyone in line or the offender will be superseded by the fork. However, when it is about a project my personal view is just one voice among others and I respect the wishes of other contributors when selecting a license for a project, esp. if they provide major shares -- as they clearly do for LibreOffice contributors, both corporate sponsored and volunteers. > So back to my question, which you did not answer. Which part of: > > 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. is unclear to you? The thing to respect -- both morally and legally -- is the license given by the contributor when publishing, which LibreOffice does very faithfully. Everything else would be madness as one would morally subject oneself to the future caprice of each and every contributor and his heirs. That is even more true for organizations (like XFree86 or Sun and its heir Oracle). So again: The answer to your question is a clear and resounding "No". Best, Bjoern
