Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Charles-H. Schulz < charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > Jim, > > I do not know who made these assertions to this entity, however it is > really important to understand that it was not the Document > Foundation. We have never been in contact with such parties. > > Let me stress again that it is necessary for this entity to contact us directly. > It's beginning to be clearer and clearer that the "entity" does not wish to be named as I think at least 10-15 times in this thread the information has been requested but has subtly been ignored by the OP. IMO (just to be clear to OP - I do not speak on behalf of the TDF as a whole) the thread should be closed at this point in time as we're up to 30 posts with a circular pattern - OP requests information about hypothetical contributor under dual or tri license, TDF requests potential contributors to contact TDF directly, OP goes back to requesting information. The whole thread seems quite strange to me as there appears to be an effort to hide who is actually thinking of contributing. Best, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibreOffice QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com -- 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, I do not know who made these assertions to this entity, however it is really important to understand that it was not the Document Foundation. We have never been in contact with such parties. Let me stress again that it is necessary for this entity to contact us directly. Thanks, Charles. Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:38:44 -0400, Jim Jagielski a écrit : > As stated, they contacted me because they had been > told that such licensing was not accepted to BOTH > parties, not just one. This should have been clear > from my 1st post. That is why I asked both parties. > > On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: > > > Hello Jim, > > > > There's something quite wrong in this conversation. Some entity -a > > corporation or a government- has approached you and asked you > > questions on how to contribute to LibreOffice (by the way, please > > be so kind as using the term "LibreOffice" and not "LO"). > > > > As the Chairman of the Apache Software Foundation the useful and > > effective thing to do is to point this entity directly at the > > Document Foundation. It is not up to the ASF to speak on behalf of > > the Document Foundation, but you obviously know this as you came > > here to ask your question on this mailing list and I thank you for > > doing so. At this stage let me reiterate that if this entity you > > have mentioned repeatedly has questions about possible > > contributions to LibreOffice, these should be directed to the > > Document Foundation and not to any other foundation. > > > > For the record, the Document Foundation has not been contacted > > (privately or publicly) by anyone but you with respect to a triple > > licensing scheme for contributing to LibreOffice. > > > > Best regards, > > > > -- > > Charles-H. Schulz > > Co-founder & Director, The Document Foundation, > > Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany > > Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > > Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint > > Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24. > > > > > > > > Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:35:08 -0400, > > Jim Jagielski a écrit : > > > >> exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply > >> boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at > >> all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of > >> the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change > >> the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 > >> as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore > >> it does not describe the actual mechanism. > >> > >> I will be blunt: it certainly *appears* that all this hand > >> waving is being done to be able to accept code when > >> it is beneficial to LO only, and not accept code when > >> it is beneficial to LO *and* AOO, as code under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 > >> would be, except for small code patches and fixes that > >> have no real "value". Such a "it depends" policy allows > >> this, and this is the core of the question. The people who > >> contacted me specifically wanted to provide code to LO, > >> that merged with LO w/ no conflicts, would require extensive > >> re-work to be folded into AOO, but would be licensed under > >> the alv2 and were told that the inclusion of the alv2 > >> as the license of the donation was unacceptable. When > >> asked if dual or triple licensing was acceptable, they > >> were told No. To them, it appeared that the *mere > >> possibility* that it could be used by AOO, even though > >> their people are being paid to work on LO, was enough > >> to prevent their work being even considered. > >> > >> Will the ASF and AOO accept code licensed in such a way > >> that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is yes. > >> > >> Will the TDF and LO accept code licensed in such a way > >> that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is > >> "it depends"... the logical assumption regarding WHY is > >> not-complimentary to TDF and LO, nor is it beneficial to > >> the OO ecosystem itself, nor is the policy defined enough > >> that code providers know what to do. > >> > >> On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Jim Jagielski wrote: > Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > > That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a > > matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of > > licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically > > accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at > > each case on its merits. > > > > That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is > whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected > *regardless* of technical merit, and that is a valid question to > ask. > > >>> Hi Jim, > >>> > >>> Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: > >>> > >>> On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to > > LibreOffice and be part
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
As stated, they contacted me because they had been told that such licensing was not accepted to BOTH parties, not just one. This should have been clear from my 1st post. That is why I asked both parties. On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Hello Jim, > > There's something quite wrong in this conversation. Some entity -a > corporation or a government- has approached you and asked you questions > on how to contribute to LibreOffice (by the way, please be so kind as > using the term "LibreOffice" and not "LO"). > > As the Chairman of the Apache Software Foundation the useful and > effective thing to do is to point this entity directly at the Document > Foundation. It is not up to the ASF to speak on behalf of the Document > Foundation, but you obviously know this as you came here to ask your > question on this mailing list and I thank you for doing so. At this > stage let me reiterate that if this entity you have mentioned > repeatedly has questions about possible contributions to LibreOffice, > these should be directed to the Document Foundation and not to any > other foundation. > > For the record, the Document Foundation has not been contacted > (privately or publicly) by anyone but you with respect to a triple > licensing scheme for contributing to LibreOffice. > > Best regards, > > -- > Charles-H. Schulz > Co-founder & Director, The Document Foundation, > Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany > Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint > Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24. > > > > Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:35:08 -0400, > Jim Jagielski a écrit : > >> exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply >> boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at >> all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of >> the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change >> the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 >> as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore >> it does not describe the actual mechanism. >> >> I will be blunt: it certainly *appears* that all this hand >> waving is being done to be able to accept code when >> it is beneficial to LO only, and not accept code when >> it is beneficial to LO *and* AOO, as code under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 >> would be, except for small code patches and fixes that >> have no real "value". Such a "it depends" policy allows >> this, and this is the core of the question. The people who >> contacted me specifically wanted to provide code to LO, >> that merged with LO w/ no conflicts, would require extensive >> re-work to be folded into AOO, but would be licensed under >> the alv2 and were told that the inclusion of the alv2 >> as the license of the donation was unacceptable. When >> asked if dual or triple licensing was acceptable, they >> were told No. To them, it appeared that the *mere >> possibility* that it could be used by AOO, even though >> their people are being paid to work on LO, was enough >> to prevent their work being even considered. >> >> Will the ASF and AOO accept code licensed in such a way >> that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is yes. >> >> Will the TDF and LO accept code licensed in such a way >> that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is >> "it depends"... the logical assumption regarding WHY is >> not-complimentary to TDF and LO, nor is it beneficial to >> the OO ecosystem itself, nor is the policy defined enough >> that code providers know what to do. >> >> On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens >> wrote: >> >>> Jim Jagielski wrote: Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a > matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of > licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically > accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each > case on its merits. > That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. >>> Hi Jim, >>> >>> Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: >>> >>> On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: > 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. > > 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, doin
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
Can someone from TDF confirm Simon's statement. If so, then I will point people to that email and we'll be done. On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply > boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at > all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of > the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change > the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 > as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore > it does not describe the actual mechanism. > > On the contrary, the answer to your original question was clearly that the > inclusion of ALv2 in the licensing of a contribution does not per se prevent > it being used. > > You have then been given a more detailed response than appears to have come > from the AOO PMC: that licensing alone is not sufficient for an open source > project to accept any given contribution. > > I don't understand why you continue to agitate and accuse. > > S. > > -- 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
Hello Jim, There's something quite wrong in this conversation. Some entity -a corporation or a government- has approached you and asked you questions on how to contribute to LibreOffice (by the way, please be so kind as using the term "LibreOffice" and not "LO"). As the Chairman of the Apache Software Foundation the useful and effective thing to do is to point this entity directly at the Document Foundation. It is not up to the ASF to speak on behalf of the Document Foundation, but you obviously know this as you came here to ask your question on this mailing list and I thank you for doing so. At this stage let me reiterate that if this entity you have mentioned repeatedly has questions about possible contributions to LibreOffice, these should be directed to the Document Foundation and not to any other foundation. For the record, the Document Foundation has not been contacted (privately or publicly) by anyone but you with respect to a triple licensing scheme for contributing to LibreOffice. Best regards, -- Charles-H. Schulz Co-founder & Director, The Document Foundation, Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint Mobile Number: +33 (0)6 98 65 54 24. Le Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:35:08 -0400, Jim Jagielski a écrit : > exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply > boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at > all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of > the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change > the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 > as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore > it does not describe the actual mechanism. > > I will be blunt: it certainly *appears* that all this hand > waving is being done to be able to accept code when > it is beneficial to LO only, and not accept code when > it is beneficial to LO *and* AOO, as code under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 > would be, except for small code patches and fixes that > have no real "value". Such a "it depends" policy allows > this, and this is the core of the question. The people who > contacted me specifically wanted to provide code to LO, > that merged with LO w/ no conflicts, would require extensive > re-work to be folded into AOO, but would be licensed under > the alv2 and were told that the inclusion of the alv2 > as the license of the donation was unacceptable. When > asked if dual or triple licensing was acceptable, they > were told No. To them, it appeared that the *mere > possibility* that it could be used by AOO, even though > their people are being paid to work on LO, was enough > to prevent their work being even considered. > > Will the ASF and AOO accept code licensed in such a way > that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is yes. > > Will the TDF and LO accept code licensed in such a way > that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is > "it depends"... the logical assumption regarding WHY is > not-complimentary to TDF and LO, nor is it beneficial to > the OO ecosystem itself, nor is the policy defined enough > that code providers know what to do. > > On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens > wrote: > > > Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > >>> That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a > >>> matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of > >>> licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically > >>> accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each > >>> case on its merits. > >>> > >> > >> That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is > >> whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* > >> of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. > >> > > Hi Jim, > > > > Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: > > > > On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> 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 prov
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply > boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at > all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of > the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change > the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 > as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore > it does not describe the actual mechanism. > On the contrary, the answer to your original question was clearly that the inclusion of ALv2 in the licensing of a contribution does not per se prevent it being used. You have then been given a more detailed response than appears to have come from the AOO PMC: that licensing alone is not sufficient for an open source project to accept any given contribution. I don't understand why you continue to agitate and accuse. S. -- 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
exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore it does not describe the actual mechanism. I will be blunt: it certainly *appears* that all this hand waving is being done to be able to accept code when it is beneficial to LO only, and not accept code when it is beneficial to LO *and* AOO, as code under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 would be, except for small code patches and fixes that have no real "value". Such a "it depends" policy allows this, and this is the core of the question. The people who contacted me specifically wanted to provide code to LO, that merged with LO w/ no conflicts, would require extensive re-work to be folded into AOO, but would be licensed under the alv2 and were told that the inclusion of the alv2 as the license of the donation was unacceptable. When asked if dual or triple licensing was acceptable, they were told No. To them, it appeared that the *mere possibility* that it could be used by AOO, even though their people are being paid to work on LO, was enough to prevent their work being even considered. Will the ASF and AOO accept code licensed in such a way that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is yes. Will the TDF and LO accept code licensed in such a way that it can be directly consumed by AOO and LO: The answer is "it depends"... the logical assumption regarding WHY is not-complimentary to TDF and LO, nor is it beneficial to the OO ecosystem itself, nor is the policy defined enough that code providers know what to do. On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:55 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: >>> That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a >>> matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of >>> licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically >>> accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each >>> case on its merits. >>> >> >> That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is >> whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* >> of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. >> > Hi Jim, > > Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: > > On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >> > > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity >> of the contacts, but that should not matter. >> > I understand, but in general we like to work directly with those > contributing the code, rather than dealing in hypotheticals. > > With kind regards, > > -- Thorsten -- 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
Since you answered a different question and continue to allege your question has not been answered, I will ask again: How could you infer *from any earlier answer* that triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused as you allege? Like Andrew Pitonyak and Jonathon Blake I read exactly the opposite in the multiple, detailed answers you've received. S. On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > "How could I infer"? Because, as I stated, it was > *specifically* inferred to other entities who subsequently > asked me if I knew the "real" answer. > > As such, I specifically asked the 2 controlling bodies of > the 2 projects. I rec'd a responses quickly from AOO, but > none was coming from LO, and therefore I had to broaden > my "contact" on that end, and was even directed/suggested > to do so, which I did. > > The ASF and AOO have no issue with patches which are > dual-licensed (alv2-lgplv3) or triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3). > They are on records as saying so. I am simply seeing if > TDF and LO are just as willing. So far, more time has been > spent on bypassing the question than simply answering it. > > On Mar 10, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > > > How could you possibly infer from any earlier answer that > > triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused? Like Andrew > > Pitonyak I read exactly the opposite. > > > > Florian said that in the sort of theoretical argument you're > > attempting, "code under a triple license is just as acceptable" and > > explained why, just as at Apache, the actual acceptability of any > > contribution in practical terms is about much more than just the > > copyright license. I struggle to see how that could be misunderstood, > > especially by someone I know to be highly intelligent and experienced. > > > > S. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> > >> Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code > >> to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed > >> (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? > >> If so, what, exactly, is the reason? > >> > >> tia! > >> > >> On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger < > flor...@effenberger.org> wrote: > >> > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > > > > -- *Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com *Meshed Insights & Knowledge * *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027 *Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816* * -- 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 arc
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
"How could I infer"? Because, as I stated, it was *specifically* inferred to other entities who subsequently asked me if I knew the "real" answer. As such, I specifically asked the 2 controlling bodies of the 2 projects. I rec'd a responses quickly from AOO, but none was coming from LO, and therefore I had to broaden my "contact" on that end, and was even directed/suggested to do so, which I did. The ASF and AOO have no issue with patches which are dual-licensed (alv2-lgplv3) or triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3). They are on records as saying so. I am simply seeing if TDF and LO are just as willing. So far, more time has been spent on bypassing the question than simply answering it. On Mar 10, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: > How could you possibly infer from any earlier answer that > triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused? Like Andrew > Pitonyak I read exactly the opposite. > > Florian said that in the sort of theoretical argument you're > attempting, "code under a triple license is just as acceptable" and > explained why, just as at Apache, the actual acceptability of any > contribution in practical terms is about much more than just the > copyright license. I struggle to see how that could be misunderstood, > especially by someone I know to be highly intelligent and experienced. > > S. > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >> Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code >> to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed >> (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? >> If so, what, exactly, is the reason? >> >> tia! >> >> On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger >> wrote: >> >>> 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 wrote: > Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > > That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a > > matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of > > licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically > > accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each > > case on its merits. > > > > That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is > whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* > of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. > Hi Jim, Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > 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. > > > > 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. > Jim Jagielski wrote: > Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity > of the contacts, but that should not matter. > I understand, but in general we like to work directly with those contributing the code, rather than dealing in hypotheticals. With kind regards, -- Thorsten -- 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
On 03/10/2013 01:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > unable to get a simple answer should be proof-positive You were given an official answer. > have also have been unable to get a clear, official answer as well. If the code is crap, it doesn't matter what license is used, it will not be accepted. If the code is good, then the issue is whether or not it is distributed with the license that LibO is distributed under, or compatible with that licence. jonathon -- Email with a precedence of other than "junk", "bulk", or "list" is automatically forwarded to Dave Null. Those emails will never be seen by me. * English - detected * English * English -- 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
How could you possibly infer from any earlier answer that triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused? Like Andrew Pitonyak I read exactly the opposite. Florian said that in the sort of theoretical argument you're attempting, "code under a triple license is just as acceptable" and explained why, just as at Apache, the actual acceptability of any contribution in practical terms is about much more than just the copyright license. I struggle to see how that could be misunderstood, especially by someone I know to be highly intelligent and experienced. S. On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code > to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed > (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? > If so, what, exactly, is the reason? > > tia! > > On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger > wrote: > > > 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
Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? If so, what, exactly, is the reason? tia! On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > 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
On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > Hi Jim, > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:42:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code >> to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed >> (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? > > That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a matter of > community, not just of license. Such combinations of licenses do not lead to a > contribution being automatically accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at > TDF, we look at each case on its merits. > That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. For example, if a patch was single-licensed under the GPL, AOO would reject it, because it is incompatible with the conditions on which AOO itself is licensed as well as because the social contract which AOO tries to create. A patch under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 would be fine, license-wise, and would not be rejected out-of-hand. At that point, the patch would either be accepted or rejected based on the technical merits, and not on any "social" aspects. > The anonymous contacts you claim to represent should step forward and work on > the dev list where I am sure their genuine needs will be accommodated > flexibly. "claim to represent"... Ah, good strategy. Instead of addressing the question, simply pretend that the question itself is "invalid" or that the person who is asking it has ulterior motives. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of the contacts, but that should not matter. The question is valid and should be easy enough to answer: would LO/TDF treat a patch/contribution under alv2-mpl-lgplv2 *ANY* different than a patch under "just" mpl-lgplv3. It's a simple question. The very fact that I've been unable to get a simple answer should be proof-positive that others that I "claim to represent" also have been unable to get a clear, official answer as well. -- 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
Hi Jim, On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:42:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code > to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed > (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each case on its merits. The anonymous contacts you claim to represent should step forward and work on the dev list where I am sure their genuine needs will be accommodated flexibly. Best, Bjoern -- 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
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
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
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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Dual licensing of patches and code
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
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
