[tdf-discuss] FW: Grant of License

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Using the address by which I am subscribed to discuss @df.o
-Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 19:48
To: LOffice Developers List (libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org)
Cc: 'discuss@documentfoundation.org'
Subject: Grant of License

This grant does not specify any particular open-source license.

My intention is to not limit in any way the licensing of works
that my contributions are incorporated in.  The license is self-
contained for that reason.  There is no conflict with how
LibreOffice releases are licensed and there is nothing that has
to be done about the presence of my contributions or derivatives
thereof.

It is also my intention that everyone having access to my
contributions to LibreOffice where they are so contributed be
be granted the license whether or not the contribution is accepted
into LibreOffice and wherever those recipients might choose
to rely on its provisions.

The license makes no stipulations one way or the other concerning
works of mine that are not contributions to LibreOffice.  The
license does not transfer copyright nor does it assign patents.

 - Dennis

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

GrantTDF 1.00   UTF-8  dh:2013-03-07

  GRANT OF LICENSE

All of my past and future contributions to LibreOffice are
with the following stipulations:

 1. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice
contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-
charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to
reproduce, combine, prepare derivative works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
contributions and such derivative works.

 2. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice
contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive,
no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent license
to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import,
and otherwise transfer works employing my contributions
or derivatives thereof, with such license applying
only to those claims controlled by myself, now or in
the future, that are necessarily infringed due to
characteristics of my LibreOffice contributions
and such of those that survive in derivatives.

I represent that I am legally entitled to grant the above
licenses.

  March 7, 2013

  Dennis E. Hamilton
  4401 44th Ave SW
  Seattle, WA 98116 USA

  orc...@apache.org
  PGP Fingerprint
  169F 4BC4 3C47 18B2 7062 E04C B011 4B87 2E94 D8E4


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJROVBzAAoJELARS4culNjkfR0H/i/U9lv0jYy8XD/BD4JaFD49
r8ixUNb1FcNxe4ICGaz/2e53doc0wPPgVUyzpB/+nURgObDBBE8eK96RqZ+zt22N
yOpxlynRPBxkjfqtw/kaG+v9concl7khghsyZVyieIFOwhMGpMNiZ2tJFDMnKKgW
/s3bva+1lsGTUNBJOoNLXyP9iQUWNLFByI15vUshL4aqLsHmdT25gkmDggWQR//h
NHH07nJA7mRDY2DotX3IwZrUinyM0rmWpKshF3GTQ+/beuTu2ZBPYFmG3GH4Bx9X
UISQoGOKLI1NwtEGkzaao2tYC4QSV7vGXqQDg+A9DMEJ1LFis3iL5wKXUuOJknI=
=KW4c
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Macro Difficulties

[Jean Weber]

>> The documentation on LO
>> BASIC is so sparse that I can't find anything about opening
>> spreadsheets. The LO help file promises documentation at
>> OpenOffice.org; but clicking that link takes me instead to
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/BASIC_Guide, which
>> is a placeholder page containing only a link to another
>> website--which doesn't respond.
>
>
> The BASIC-Guide is still on
>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/BASIC_Guide

I have corrected the link on our wiki to point to the correct page, as above.

--Jean

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Macro Difficulties

[Regina Henschel]

Hi Charles,

Charles Jenkins schrieb:

This is a story about the usability of LO BASIC and the documentation
thereof. And also a plea for help.

I'm trying to get LibreOffice to work with SAP Business One
(hereafter called B1) in order to eliminate the need to pay for
expensive licenses for Microsoft Excel.

B1 has a toolbar button that's supposed to generate a spreadsheet for
data viewed as a table onscreen. Unfortunately, instead of really
creating a spreadsheet, B1 just dumps out a tab-separated text file
and then opens a spreadsheet called "AutoOpen.xls" that in turn loads
the text file into a new spreadsheet.

This clunky way of doing things has the advantage that there's no
worry about file formats. Whatever version of Excel you're running,
it can open the text file. This method *could* work in LibreOffice
too, but unfortunately the macro command used in AutoOpen.xls doesn't
exist in LO BASIC. The command is Workbooks.OpenText

I'm not sure if the problem is that OpenText doesn't exist, or if
there is no Workbooks object to begin with. The documentation on LO
BASIC is so sparse that I can't find anything about opening
spreadsheets. The LO help file promises documentation at
OpenOffice.org; but clicking that link takes me instead to
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/BASIC_Guide, which
is a placeholder page containing only a link to another
website--which doesn't respond.


The BASIC-Guide is still on

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/BASIC_Guide

You might also want to look at
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Basic/OpenOffice.org_Basic

Old, but in parts still useful is "StarOffice 8 Programming Guide for 
BASIC". It is no longer available from Oracle, but you will find it on 
the web.


And you need  "IDL Reference Complete LibreOffice 4.0 API reference". It 
is in the SDK or use it online 
http://api.libreoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/module-ix.html






(By the way, the help file does document an Open command, but that
command is used to open simple data files to be processed and closed
by the script. It doesn't cause LO to open a document in the UI.)


The help has a lot of commands, which do not fit to modern systems. The 
simple file access commands no longer work, never use them.




After finding nothing documented, I enabled macro recording, began
recording a macro, and used File > Open to open the text
file/spreadsheet myself. Obviously, I was hoping to then examine the
macro to learn what objects and functions LO uses to open files.


The macro recorder uses the dispatcher. You cannot learn from it to 
write own macros.


 But

opening a new file causes macro recording to end without a comment,
warning, or error…and without saving anything of the macro in
progress.

Can anyone give me clues to creating a macro which can open a
spreadsheet?


Kind regards
Regina



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Macro Difficulties

[Johnny Rosenberg]

2013/3/7 Tony Pursell :
> On 7 March 2013 16:43, Charles Jenkins  wrote:
>
>> This is a story about the usability of LO BASIC and the documentation
>> thereof. And also a plea for help.
>>
>> I'm trying to get LibreOffice to work with SAP Business One (hereafter
>> called B1) in order to eliminate the need to pay for expensive licenses for
>> Microsoft Excel.
>>
>> B1 has a toolbar button that's supposed to generate a spreadsheet for data
>> viewed as a table onscreen. Unfortunately, instead of really creating a
>> spreadsheet, B1 just dumps out a tab-separated text file and then opens a
>> spreadsheet called "AutoOpen.xls" that in turn loads the text file into a
>> new spreadsheet.
>>
>> This clunky way of doing things has the advantage that there's no worry
>> about file formats. Whatever version of Excel you're running, it can open
>> the text file. This method *could* work in LibreOffice too, but
>> unfortunately the macro command used in AutoOpen.xls doesn't exist in LO
>> BASIC. The command is Workbooks.OpenText
>>
>> I'm not sure if the problem is that OpenText doesn't exist, or if there is
>> no Workbooks object to begin with. The documentation on LO BASIC is so
>> sparse that I can't find anything about opening spreadsheets. The LO help
>> file promises documentation at OpenOffice.org; but clicking that link takes
>> me instead to
>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/BASIC_Guide, which is a
>> placeholder page containing only a link to another website--which doesn't
>> respond.
>>
>> (By the way, the help file does document an Open command, but that command
>> is used to open simple data files to be processed and closed by the script.
>> It doesn't cause LO to open a document in the UI.)
>>
>> After finding nothing documented, I enabled macro recording, began
>> recording a macro, and used File > Open to open the text file/spreadsheet
>> myself. Obviously, I was hoping to then examine the macro to learn what
>> objects and functions LO uses to open files. But opening a new file causes
>> macro recording to end without a comment, warning, or error…and without
>> saving anything of the macro in progress.
>>
>> Can anyone give me clues to creating a macro which can open a spreadsheet?
>>
>>
> Try this
>
> http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>
> Tony

Sorry, should have read your post before I posted an identical one (we
sent exactly the same link)…


Johnny Rosenberg


>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems? 
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Macro Difficulties

[Johnny Rosenberg]

2013/3/7 Nino Novak :
> Am 07.03.2013 17:43, schrieb Charles Jenkins:
>
>
>> This is a story about the usability of LO BASIC and the documentation
>> thereof.
>
>
> Please keep in mind, that LibreOffice has evolved from OpenOffice.org (now
> Apache Open Office), which in turn is derived from StarOffice.
>
> So you in addition might want to google for ooobasic or even starbasic, if
> LO basic does not give the desired results.
>
>
>> Can anyone give me clues to creating a macro which can open a spreadsheet?
>
>
> http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=134164
> or even better,
> http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?p=365860
>
> HTH,
> Nino

http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php


>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Macro Difficulties

[Tony Pursell]

On 7 March 2013 16:43, Charles Jenkins  wrote:

> This is a story about the usability of LO BASIC and the documentation
> thereof. And also a plea for help.
>
> I'm trying to get LibreOffice to work with SAP Business One (hereafter
> called B1) in order to eliminate the need to pay for expensive licenses for
> Microsoft Excel.
>
> B1 has a toolbar button that's supposed to generate a spreadsheet for data
> viewed as a table onscreen. Unfortunately, instead of really creating a
> spreadsheet, B1 just dumps out a tab-separated text file and then opens a
> spreadsheet called "AutoOpen.xls" that in turn loads the text file into a
> new spreadsheet.
>
> This clunky way of doing things has the advantage that there's no worry
> about file formats. Whatever version of Excel you're running, it can open
> the text file. This method *could* work in LibreOffice too, but
> unfortunately the macro command used in AutoOpen.xls doesn't exist in LO
> BASIC. The command is Workbooks.OpenText
>
> I'm not sure if the problem is that OpenText doesn't exist, or if there is
> no Workbooks object to begin with. The documentation on LO BASIC is so
> sparse that I can't find anything about opening spreadsheets. The LO help
> file promises documentation at OpenOffice.org; but clicking that link takes
> me instead to
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/BASIC_Guide, which is a
> placeholder page containing only a link to another website--which doesn't
> respond.
>
> (By the way, the help file does document an Open command, but that command
> is used to open simple data files to be processed and closed by the script.
> It doesn't cause LO to open a document in the UI.)
>
> After finding nothing documented, I enabled macro recording, began
> recording a macro, and used File > Open to open the text file/spreadsheet
> myself. Obviously, I was hoping to then examine the macro to learn what
> objects and functions LO uses to open files. But opening a new file causes
> macro recording to end without a comment, warning, or error…and without
> saving anything of the macro in progress.
>
> Can anyone give me clues to creating a macro which can open a spreadsheet?
>
>
Try this

http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php

Tony

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: Macro Difficulties

[Nino Novak]

Am 07.03.2013 17:43, schrieb Charles Jenkins:


This is a story about the usability of LO BASIC and the documentation thereof.


Please keep in mind, that LibreOffice has evolved from OpenOffice.org 
(now Apache Open Office), which in turn is derived from StarOffice.


So you in addition might want to google for ooobasic or even starbasic, 
if LO basic does not give the desired results.



Can anyone give me clues to creating a macro which can open a spreadsheet?


http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=134164
or even better,
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?p=365860

HTH,
Nino

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Macro Difficulties

[Charles Jenkins]

This is a story about the usability of LO BASIC and the documentation thereof. 
And also a plea for help.

I'm trying to get LibreOffice to work with SAP Business One (hereafter called 
B1) in order to eliminate the need to pay for expensive licenses for Microsoft 
Excel.

B1 has a toolbar button that's supposed to generate a spreadsheet for data 
viewed as a table onscreen. Unfortunately, instead of really creating a 
spreadsheet, B1 just dumps out a tab-separated text file and then opens a 
spreadsheet called "AutoOpen.xls" that in turn loads the text file into a new 
spreadsheet.

This clunky way of doing things has the advantage that there's no worry about 
file formats. Whatever version of Excel you're running, it can open the text 
file. This method *could* work in LibreOffice too, but unfortunately the macro 
command used in AutoOpen.xls doesn't exist in LO BASIC. The command is 
Workbooks.OpenText

I'm not sure if the problem is that OpenText doesn't exist, or if there is no 
Workbooks object to begin with. The documentation on LO BASIC is so sparse that 
I can't find anything about opening spreadsheets. The LO help file promises 
documentation at OpenOffice.org; but clicking that link takes me instead to 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/BASIC_Guide, which is a 
placeholder page containing only a link to another website--which doesn't 
respond.

(By the way, the help file does document an Open command, but that command is 
used to open simple data files to be processed and closed by the script. It 
doesn't cause LO to open a document in the UI.)

After finding nothing documented, I enabled macro recording, began recording a 
macro, and used File > Open to open the text file/spreadsheet myself. 
Obviously, I was hoping to then examine the macro to learn what objects and 
functions LO uses to open files. But opening a new file causes macro recording 
to end without a comment, warning, or error…and without saving anything of the 
macro in progress.

Can anyone give me clues to creating a macro which can open a spreadsheet?  

--

Charles


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code

[Florian Effenberger]

Hi Jim,

Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05:


I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
nothing else, is such a patch acceptable.


as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to LibreOffice and 
be part of our community, we require a dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for 
contributions, which gives everyone the benefit of the strong rights 
these licenses grant. From time to time, depending on the specific case 
and the quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces 
of code with compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on its 
merits.



And this is not a theoretical question. I have been
approached by people and companies stating that
they wish to help LO but want to provide their code
patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons)
and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such
code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple
licensed under the ALv2
In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In 
practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers working as 
a team together, doing the actual code review and acceptance work. There 
is a spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing 
project. Many core developers may be less inclined to invest their time 
into significant, active assistance: mentoring, reviewing, finding code 
pointers, merging, back porting, and so on, for functionality that will 
not provide a distinctive value for LibreOffice.


So, while there may be many possible acceptable variations of inbound 
license and contributions, there are likely relational consequences of 
those choices that are hard to quantify. Having said that, all 
developers who want to contribute constructively to LibreOffice are 
welcome in our community, and we have a high degree of flexibility to 
fulfill their genuine needs. The best thing to do is just to point them 
to our developers list.


Florian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code

[Jim Jagielski]

For corporate entities, this is not optimal... they need legal to
sign off on any donations, and such a "single" donation is
much easier. If a donation is triple-licensed "mpl+alv2+lgpgv2"
would that be accepted by TDF?

On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Florian Reisinger  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am gonna try to answer your question, although I am not that experienced:
> 
> If you are the author of the code, you may send it in as MPL + LGPLv3
> to LibreOffice and to ALv2 to OpenOffice. Might this answer your
> question?
> 
> 
> Liebe Grüße, / Yours,
> Florian Reisinger
> 
> Am 06.03.2013 um 16:31 schrieb Jim Jagielski :
> 
>> Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question.
>> 
>> I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
>> I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
>> Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
>> nothing else, is such a patch acceptable.
>> 
>> Dropping OpenOffice since they have already indicated that
>> the answer for them is YES.
>> 
>> And this is not a theoretical question. I have been
>> approached by people and companies stating that
>> they wish to help LO but want to provide their code
>> patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons)
>> and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such
>> code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple
>> licensed under the ALv2.
>> 
>> tia.
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Florian Effenberger 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Jim,
>>> 
>>> thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject here: 
>>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Florian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32:
 
 On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
 
> So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
> an answer from TDF as well.
> 
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
>> BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
>> any and all responses :)
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello there.
>>> 
>>> This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
>>> the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
>>> notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.
>>> 
>>> Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
>>> numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
>>> affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
>>> patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
>>> general, these people have code that directly patches LO
>>> but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
>>> can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
>>> modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
>>> the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
>>> orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
>>> license their contributions as they see fit. However,
>>> I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
>>> dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
>>> to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
>>> the ASF.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
>>> both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
>>> are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
>>> are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
>>> by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
>>> which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
>>> such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>> 
> 
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
>> Problems? 
>> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
>> deleted
>> 
> 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code

[Jim Jagielski]

The 'problem' is that I've been approached by a number of
corp, gov't and non-profits who wish to contribute to LO
but want their donations to also be covered under the ALv2.

They have heard back that code under ALv2 will not be accepted
by TDF and LO and that patches must be under LGPLv3+MPL to
even be considered. They would like to know if submissions
under ALv2+LGPLv3 or even ALv2+MPL+LGPLv3 would be acceptable.

Thx for any answers that could be provided.

On Mar 6, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Florian Effenberger 
 wrote:

> Hello Jim,
> 
> while it is hard to understand the problem, in principle, with using any 
> combination of licenses in addition to the project's  preferred LGPLv3/MPLv2 
> dual license, do you have a patch or proposal for a patch submitted to the 
> dev mailing list that we can look at?
> 
> Best,
> Florian
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05:
>> Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question.
>> 
>> I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
>> I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
>> Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
>> nothing else, is such a patch acceptable.
>> 
>> Dropping OpenOffice since they have already indicated that
>> the answer for them is YES.
>> 
>> And this is not a theoretical question. I have been
>> approached by people and companies stating that
>> they wish to help LO but want to provide their code
>> patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons)
>> and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such
>> code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple
>> licensed under the ALv2.
>> 
>> tia.
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Florian Effenberger 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Jim,
>>> 
>>> thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject here: 
>>> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Florian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32:
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

[Jim Jagielski]

Hence my (and others) confusion...

It's a pretty easy question; at it's basic:

   Would code provided under ALv2+MPL+LGPLv3 be acceptable
   to TDF and LO?

On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:

> 
> back from vacation I stumbled over this interesting thread and for
> whatever reason my mail filter skipped Florian's answer.
> 
> But after asking if I missed a reply I was pointed on
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy which is an
> interesting page to read.
> 
> Is it possible that this page is somewhat outdated and doesn't reflect
> the current state of the project. I don't read anything about the Apache
> License and that the project is now based on the Apache OpenOffice code
> base. Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to change the license
> header in the way it was done for LO 4.0. Maybe worth to add a section
> to explain this and to avoid confusion.
> 
> It really confuses me and I am now lost a little bit. How can I as
> individual contributor know where the code comes from originally.
> 
> 
> Juergen
> 
> 
> On 3/5/13 6:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>>> So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
>>> an answer from TDF as well.
>>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>> 
 BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
 any and all responses :)
 
 
 On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
 
> Hello there.
> 
> This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
> the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
> notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.
> 
> Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
> numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
> affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
> patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
> general, these people have code that directly patches LO
> but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
> can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
> modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
> the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
> orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
> license their contributions as they see fit. However,
> I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
> dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
> to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
> the ASF.
> 
> Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
> both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
> are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
> are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
> by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
> which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
> such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
 
>>> 
>> 
> 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

[Andre Fischer]

On 06.03.2013 15:25, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:

On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote:

On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote:

I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to
some basic level api for 3rd party developers?

It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete
code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list;


Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a
question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear
answer.  Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I
speak it.

Stephan Bergman talked about "Well-typed UNO", something that would
involve incompatible changes to the UNO API.  I would like to know if
LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this. I am
just talking about changes on API level not the underlying
implementation.  That would be something that both projects would do
independently.


First off, depends on what you mean with "UNO API."  One customary 
meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and 
offapi/ .idl files.  (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any 
incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the "API Changes" 
section at 
.)


Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface 
the URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc.  
My hope is that my work on changing the type representation does not 
affect the former, only the latter (file formats etc.).  And, 
obviously, it will need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan.


By "UNO API" I mean everything that affects a packaged extension, that 
is basically your option B.  So if I understand you correctly that an 
extension developer just has to recompile (for a C++ extension) the 
source code, repackage the extension and is done (with respect to your 
changes).  That sounds good.




That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that 
I'm going to well document all the changes to any 
specifications---just like I did for any other changes to UNO I did 
over the last ten years or so.  And, as always, any input is highly 
welcome.


Great. Thanks.
Do you have a pointer to the relevant documentation?

-Andre



Stephan



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

[tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

[Jürgen Schmidt]

back from vacation I stumbled over this interesting thread and for
whatever reason my mail filter skipped Florian's answer.

But after asking if I missed a reply I was pointed on
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy which is an
interesting page to read.

Is it possible that this page is somewhat outdated and doesn't reflect
the current state of the project. I don't read anything about the Apache
License and that the project is now based on the Apache OpenOffice code
base. Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to change the license
header in the way it was done for LO 4.0. Maybe worth to add a section
to explain this and to avoid confusion.

It really confuses me and I am now lost a little bit. How can I as
individual contributor know where the code comes from originally.


Juergen


On 3/5/13 6:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
>> So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
>> an answer from TDF as well.
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
>>> any and all responses :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>>>
 Hello there.

 This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
 the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
 notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.

 Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
 numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
 affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
 patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
 general, these people have code that directly patches LO
 but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
 can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
 modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
 the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
 orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
 license their contributions as they see fit. However,
 I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
 dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
 to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
 the ASF.

 Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
 both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
 are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
 are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
 by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
 which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
 such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.

 Thank you.

>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:

On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote:

On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote:

I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to
some basic level api for 3rd party developers?

It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete
code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list;


Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a
question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear
answer.  Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I
speak it.

Stephan Bergman talked about "Well-typed UNO", something that would
involve incompatible changes to the UNO API.  I would like to know if
LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this.  I am
just talking about changes on API level not the underlying
implementation.  That would be something that both projects would do
independently.


First off, depends on what you mean with "UNO API."  One customary 
meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and 
offapi/ .idl files.  (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any 
incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the "API Changes" section 
at .)


Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface the 
URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc.  My hope 
is that my work on changing the type representation does not affect the 
former, only the latter (file formats etc.).  And, obviously, it will 
need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan.


That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that I'm 
going to well document all the changes to any specifications---just like 
I did for any other changes to UNO I did over the last ten years or so. 
 And, as always, any input is highly welcome.


Stephan

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

[Michael Meeks]

Hi guys,

On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote:
> I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to
> some basic level api for 3rd party developers?

It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete
code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list;
please drop that one from the CC.

Thanks,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

[Fred Ollinger]

I know that there were reasons for the fork and I respect that. I was
wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to some basic level api
for 3rd party developers?

Probably not, but I think it's worth asking.

Fred

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Keith Curtis  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
>> On 4/03/2013 8:27, M. Fioretti wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 08:16:25 AM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote:
>>>
 99% percent , changes comes and will come from incompatiliteis in de API.
 for now this is OK, small changes from version to version, but
 nothing who not can been repaired or handled with the code( basic)
 itself
>>>
>>> I knew that. The sense of my question is, is there is a list of things
>>> to avoid beforehand, rather than wait that they break and fix the
>>> code?
>>
>> thats more a question for the developers list .
>> libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org  and fore the aOO counterpart
>> ooo-...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Marco
>
> The reason why nobody responded is no one knows, and it will generally
> get worse over time as the codebases diverge. It is sort of like the
> Java: "write once, test everywhere" situation.
>
> One of the unintended consequences of the fork is the various ways it
> makes things more difficult for third-parties. Users will generally
> pick one product, but extension developers have a more complicated set
> of choices because they may want to support multiple brands. Here is
> an article I recently wrote about the power of brands that may be
> helpful: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=3163
>
> The good news is that in the free software world, code flows with less
> friction. Any typical (non-enterprise) who really wants an extension
> will likely be able to install a specific version of the product if it
> is required. It is just a download.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Regards,
>
> -Keith
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 03/06/2013 04:47 PM, Andre Fischer wrote:

On 06.03.2013 15:25, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:

On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote:

On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote:

I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to
some basic level api for 3rd party developers?

It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete
code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list;


Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a
question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear
answer.  Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I
speak it.

Stephan Bergman talked about "Well-typed UNO", something that would
involve incompatible changes to the UNO API.  I would like to know if
LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this. I am
just talking about changes on API level not the underlying
implementation.  That would be something that both projects would do
independently.


First off, depends on what you mean with "UNO API."  One customary
meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and
offapi/ .idl files.  (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any
incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the "API Changes"
section at
.)

Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface
the URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc. My
hope is that my work on changing the type representation does not
affect the former, only the latter (file formats etc.).  And,
obviously, it will need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan.


By "UNO API" I mean everything that affects a packaged extension, that
is basically your option B.  So if I understand you correctly that an
extension developer just has to recompile (for a C++ extension) the
source code, repackage the extension and is done (with respect to your
changes).  That sounds good.


It should basically boil down to:  If you include a types.rdb in your 
extension, you can translate it to the new format (or not, in which case 
your extension will work as long as we keep the backwards-compatibility 
code alive).  If you don't include something like that (and that's 
likely most extensions anyway, except for Calc Add-Ons), you don't need 
to do anything at all.



That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that
I'm going to well document all the changes to any
specifications---just like I did for any other changes to UNO I did
over the last ten years or so.  And, as always, any input is highly
welcome.


Great. Thanks.
Do you have a pointer to the relevant documentation?


Not yet.  As always, things progress more slowly than I'd hoped.  Stay 
tuned, though.  ;)


Stephan

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

[Andre Fischer]

On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote:

Hi guys,

On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote:

I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to
some basic level api for 3rd party developers?

It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete
code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list;


Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a
question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear
answer.  Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I
speak it.

Stephan Bergman talked about "Well-typed UNO", something that would
involve incompatible changes to the UNO API.  I would like to know if
LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this.  I am
just talking about changes on API level not the underlying
implementation.  That would be something that both projects would do
independently.

I am asking this because I think that the users of both LO and AOO
would benefit from APIs that are as similar as possible.  I am aware
that there are other incompatible changes in both projects but every
part of the API that remains compatible between LO and AOO means that an
extension developer does not have to care about it when developing an
extension for both projects.


please drop that one from the CC.


As my question is directed at (to?) the LibreOffice developers, I hope 
that you don't mind that I have put the LO list back on CC.


Thanks,
Andre



Thanks,

Michael.




--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted