Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-11-01 Thread Michael Meeks 

On 01/11/16 21:30, Wols Lists wrote:
> (Incidentally, if I understand my UK law correctly,

Amateur legal speculation is not appreciated on TDF mailing lists.
Please don't do that.

If you have a real legal concern, please call me - while IANAL, for
better or worse, I'm the TDF board / legal contact person. Thanks.

> Anyways, even if I'm not happy with this, sounds like I ought
> to bow out of it.

Much appreciated - but of course, we really welcome your development
contributions, and happy to talk anytime of course =)

All the best,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-11-01 Thread Wols Lists 
On 01/11/16 19:37, Michael Stahl wrote:
> may i suggest you actually *read* the clauses of the MPLv2 that Michael
> has pointed out as being particularly helpful, and then think about what
> risks accepting code contributions under other licenses lacking such
> clauses would expose TDF and downstream distributors to.

Hmmm... Basically that the contributor explicitly warrants that he has
the authority to grant those rights ...

(Incidentally, if I understand my UK law correctly, clause 8 could be
problematic although that's extremely unlikely in practice. Under
certain - in this case improbable - circumstances, the smaller party has
choice of venue, contract clauses notwithstanding :-)

Anyways, even if I'm not happy with this, sounds like I ought to bow out
of it.

(And the good news is, hopefully 11.1 will soon be irrelevant - it looks
like software patents - as in "software on a general purpose computer" -
will soon be dead in the water :-)

Cheers,
Wol
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-11-01 Thread Norbert Thiebaud 
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Wols Lists  wrote:
>>
> Because giving orders to volunteers isn't actually a very good idea?

there was no 'order' given.
what was said is:
"Please be aware this license cannot be used for development activities."
which is a factual statement regarding the current rules in force in
the project.

>
> Sorry, but I'm probably not unique in getting upset when told to do
> something "just because".

It is not 'just because'. That you choose to ignore the reason behind
the choice of license, and the unfortunate necessity to manage these
things does not make the decision whimsical.

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-11-01 Thread Michael Stahl 
On 01.11.2016 20:14, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 11/10/16 12:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>  So - the policy does have some basis in usefulness =) Although you are
>> right, we could take contributions under other licenses, it is really
>> non-ideal. And it is seldom an issue, having clarity is helpful.
> 
> Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
> they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.
> 
> Maybe add the following to the policy
> 
> "If people wish to use a different grant of licence they should add the
> following at the end - 'I affirm this gives permission for my code to be
> distributed under the project-standard MPL/LGPL licences'"
> 
> This then also gives us an out, in that if by some chance their choice
> of licence is partly incompatible with ours, they have explicitly given
> us permission anyways :-)

may i suggest you actually *read* the clauses of the MPLv2 that Michael
has pointed out as being particularly helpful, and then think about what
risks accepting code contributions under other licenses lacking such
clauses would expose TDF and downstream distributors to.

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-11-01 Thread Wols Lists 
On 01/11/16 19:19, Jan Iversen wrote:
> 
>>
>> Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
>> they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.
> 
> Just a fast input, during the last year where I have been keeping an eye on 
> licenses, we have not had a single real problem. 
> 
> We have had a couple of people needing clarification, and a couple (I only 
> remember one) who did not want to use his name.
> 
> So why change a working system and create potential confusion.
> 
Because giving orders to volunteers isn't actually a very good idea?

Sorry, but I'm probably not unique in getting upset when told to do
something "just because". Trying to meet others half-way is always a
good idea.

Cheers,
Wol

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-11-01 Thread Jan Iversen 

> 
> Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
> they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.

Just a fast input, during the last year where I have been keeping an eye on 
licenses, we have not had a single real problem. 

We have had a couple of people needing clarification, and a couple (I only 
remember one) who did not want to use his name.

So why change a working system and create potential confusion.

Rgds
Jan I.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-11-01 Thread Wols Lists 
On 11/10/16 12:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
>   So - the policy does have some basis in usefulness =) Although you are
> right, we could take contributions under other licenses, it is really
> non-ideal. And it is seldom an issue, having clarity is helpful.

Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.

Maybe add the following to the policy

"If people wish to use a different grant of licence they should add the
following at the end - 'I affirm this gives permission for my code to be
distributed under the project-standard MPL/LGPL licences'"

This then also gives us an out, in that if by some chance their choice
of licence is partly incompatible with ours, they have explicitly given
us permission anyways :-)

(And it also means they've given us permission to distribute under new
versions, because my wording says "the project-standard" rather than any
particular version :-)

Cheers,
Wol
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-10-11 Thread Michael Meeks 
Hi Dennis,

On 10/11/2016 11:57 AM, Dennis Roczek wrote:
> why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public
> Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!

Technically =) but let me link to the MPLv2 quickly to see some of what
we'd miss in this case (ie. virtually all of it) - IANAL but for reference:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/

Some quick examples; section 2.5 is interesting, 8. likewise, 2.1 +
1.11 is particularly helpful - there are more, but these jump out at me
in the 2 minutes I took to skim it again =)

So - the policy does have some basis in usefulness =) Although you are
right, we could take contributions under other licenses, it is really
non-ideal. And it is seldom an issue, having clarity is helpful.

Thanks,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-10-11 Thread Jan Iversen 
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Jan,
> 
> why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public
> Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!
> 
> It's the same if somebody wants to use APLv2. It is compatible with our
> license and it totally valid.

Not again, sorry.

Look at:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers#Example_Statement 


that is the current rulebook, for development exclusively use MPLv2/LGPLv3+ 
dual license

The ESC can change that rule, but until then, that is how we work with our 
development repos.

Other types of work is less my concern, but there is an ongoing discussion 
about how documentation should be licensed.

rgds
jan I.

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-10-11 Thread Dennis Roczek 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi Jan,

why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public
Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!

It's the same if somebody wants to use APLv2. It is compatible with our
license and it totally valid.

Regards,

Dennis Roczek

On 11.10.2016 11:59, Jan Iversen wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Thanks for your license statement. Please be aware this license cannot
 be used for development activities. Our project consist of many other a
ctivities where this license is good.
> 
> rgds
> jan I.
> 
>> On 11 Oct 2016, at 11:30, Björn Balazs  wrote:
>>
>> To the extent possible under law, I waive all copyright and related o
r
>> neighboring rights to my past & future contributions to LibreOffice:
>>
>>   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Björn
>> ---
>> Dipl.-Psych. Björn Balazs
>> Business Management & Research
>>
>> User Prompt GmbH | Psychologic IT Expertise 
>> Grünberger Str. 49, 10245 Berlin | www.user-prompt.com 
>> HRB 142277 | AG Berlin Charlottenburg | Geschäftsführer Björn Balazs_
__
>> LibreOffice mailing list
>> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
> 
> ___
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=mbbS
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Björn Balazs license statement

2016-10-11 Thread Jan Iversen 
Hi

Thanks for your license statement. Please be aware this license cannot be used 
for development activities. Our project consist of many other activities where 
this license is good.

rgds
jan I.

> On 11 Oct 2016, at 11:30, Björn Balazs  wrote:
> 
> To the extent possible under law, I waive all copyright and related or 
> neighboring rights to my past & future contributions to LibreOffice:
> 
>   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0
> 
> Cheers,
> Björn
> ---
> Dipl.-Psych. Björn Balazs
> Business Management & Research
> 
> User Prompt GmbH | Psychologic IT Expertise 
> Grünberger Str. 49, 10245 Berlin | www.user-prompt.com 
> HRB 142277 | AG Berlin Charlottenburg | Geschäftsführer Björn 
> Balazs___
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice