Rob makes some important points. Here's my analysis based on that: 1. Oracle did not put anything under the ALv2 with its Software Grant Agreement. It granted the ASF a nonexclusive license (and to none others that we are aware of), to use the identified code in a particular way, including licensing to others (or not). [The Lotus Symphony software grant from IBM is on the same basis.]
2. The licensed code that the ASF (via the Apache OpenOffice podling) makes available under the ALv2 consists of those digital artifacts that bear the ALv2 license notice in the Apache OpenOffice SVN repository, in the source-code release tar-balls, and elsewhere. This is allowed under the license conditions of the applicable SGA. 3. It is that ALv2-licensed, and only that ALv2-licensed code that downstream users can create derivatives of under the provisions of the ALv2 and with any appropriately-added licensing for their contribution to the derivative and/or its combining, such as the MPL. (There is no relicensing in this scenario. That is a misnomer. It would be good to stop using the term because it suggests liberties that are not necessarily provided for under an open-source license such as the ALv2.) 4. While the ALv2 code will assist the TDF in rebasing LibreOffice into MPL-licensed code, source code under the MPL (or MPL dual with LGPL) license cannot be brought upstream for use in Apache OpenOffice. That's an ASF constraint on license-compatibility of third-party code derived/combined into source code distributed by Apache projects. 5. It seems to me that making as much available under the Alv2 that can be preserved from the CWS collection is a good thing to do insofar that it makes sense for the Apache OpenOffice project to bring that material into AOO custody and maintenance and with ALv2 licensing. It makes the result of that work widely available and usable in ALv2-based undertakings. There's a public benefit. 6. Nevertheless, downstream rebasing under MPL is of no direct benefit, cooperatively or otherwise, to the Apache OpenOffice project. There's no problem with that happening -- forking is a feature. But all of the benefits of that are downstream, just as they are if LibreOffice remains LGPL in total. And cooperative efforts are just as possible (and no more so) either way. And it is part of the ASF operation in the public interest that there is no problem with this, I say. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 19:31 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: LibreOffice relicensing efforts On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > In case folks haven't seen this: > > http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia > > Which points to: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing > > So it looks like there will be plenty of code sharing! 8-> > It seems to be based on an interesting theory about what an SGA actually does. It seems to assume that the SGA itself puts the code under the Apache License. But does it? Take a look at the actually text: http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt I don't see anything where it states that the grantor gives the files to the ASF under ALv2. But it does give the ASF a broader bucket of permissions, including the right to sublicense. My impression I think the ALv2 is attached during the IP review process in the Podling, as we review the code, as Oracle (via Andrew) changed the LGPL headers to Apache headers, and ultimately when the IPMC voted to approve the AOO 3.4 release. Ultimately, basing a LO license rebasing on a pre-IP review, pre-release version of AOO is not recommended. We all know what types of issues we ran into and had to clean up. The released code is in much better, in terms of straightening out the licenses. > - Shane
