Re: Tiago Santos license statement doubt

[Tiago Santos]

Many thanks Wols.

I think this settles my doubts and I am comfortable proceeding. I will 
just wait until Monday to send my introductory licence agreement, so 
that, if Hugo Oliveira wants to add something, has the opportunity to do so.



Cheers,

Tiago Santos


Às 19:17 de 26-08-2016, Wols Lists escreveu:

On 26/08/16 18:58, Tiago Santos wrote:

Can I make LO licence statement now, or, once I make the statement I am
interfering with the base licences, and as such, I must wait until PAPEL
and Onto.pt author also grants a specific licensing change permission
for this project?

You can't interfere with other peoples' licences.

Your licence statement only applies to contributions for which you hold
the copyright, so as long as you make it clear what code is yours and
what code is other peoples', you can post your licence statement at your
convenience.

(The current situation is confusing, because it sounds like you have
compiler's copyright, which means you own the copyright in the files you
are submitting, but not in the files they were built from. That's why
being very clear about what work is whose is so important...)

Cheers,
Wol



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

Re: Tiago Santos license statement doubt

[Wols Lists]

On 26/08/16 18:58, Tiago Santos wrote:
> Can I make LO licence statement now, or, once I make the statement I am
> interfering with the base licences, and as such, I must wait until PAPEL
> and Onto.pt author also grants a specific licensing change permission
> for this project?

You can't interfere with other peoples' licences.

Your licence statement only applies to contributions for which you hold
the copyright, so as long as you make it clear what code is yours and
what code is other peoples', you can post your licence statement at your
convenience.

(The current situation is confusing, because it sounds like you have
compiler's copyright, which means you own the copyright in the files you
are submitting, but not in the files they were built from. That's why
being very clear about what work is whose is so important...)

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

Re: Tiago Santos license statement doubt

[Tiago Santos]

Hello again Jan!


I understand there should be no issue, since all the requirements 
mentioned were followed, except to have the written permission forwarded 
to the project.


I already have the waiver in Portuguese and just need to know to whom 
should I address it.



 It is important that patches submitted are your own work and thus free 

of other license bindings.

(...)


 The license must be known and accepted.



Those thesauri are ‘original’ in the sense that they were converted, 
merged, and rebuilt ‘from scratch’. Unlike the first patch, there is 
only a small minority of lines that look like any of the source files. I 
credit the other authors/projects and included the licences in the 
Leiame file (Readme) inside the articles, for the word relations these 
projects provide.



> - you cannot change the license, without the written permission from 
the author (and we have a copy).



Can I make LO licence statement now, or, once I make the statement I am 
interfering with the base licences, and as such, I must wait until PAPEL 
and Onto.pt author also grants a specific licensing change permission 
for this project?


Sorry for these doubts, but, at least for me, these matters are very 
confusing and overwhelming.



Since this discussion pertains him, I copy in Hugo G. Oliveira, 
responsible for both projects, as well.



Best regards,

Tiago Santos


Às 09:43 de 26-08-2016, jan iversen escreveu:

Hi

For some reason, your email was duplicated, but let me try to answer 
your questions.


First of all let me say it is nice to see someone take the license 
seriously, a lot of people says "Lets do it without license" and 
believes that makes their software open and free.



Recently, I have been pointed to the Get Involved page, and I would 
like to subscribe to the license terms posted there, though I would 
like to ask advice about my previous submissions before proceeding.

I am the culpit, who commented on your bugzilla patches.

The first patch is a corrected merge of European Portuguese and 
Brazilian LibreOffice auto-correction files, explained and submitted 
on bug 97439.
I do not have many doubts about this patch since it was based on two 
files already present in LibreOffice, and as such, they should also 
be licensed under MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
You submitted it as an attachment to bugzilla, and these follow the 
footer note on
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/ "Source code form contributions 
such as patches are considered to be modifications under the Mozilla 
Public License v2.0 ."


Furthermore you did not directly merge them into the master branch, I 
did that in your name, acting as a "guarantee" for the license.


We do accept smaller patches without a license statement, but as soon 
as you submit something bigger or more complicated, the license 
statement is demanded, to avoid any doubt.


The main doubts come from the second patch and third patches, posted 
on bug 101616. They are vastly increased thesaurus for European 
Portuguese language (though the third patch may be suitable for 
Brazilian Portuguese after review).
These last two patches were posted as a package with a copy of the 
base licenses since they are based in the already existing thesaurus 
from LibreOffice (MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license) and two other European 
Portuguese academic ontologies with free distribution licenses. I 
requested email approval from of the author, in addition to the 
public claim of free use from project PAPEL, and Creative Commons 
Attribution 3.0 Unported license from project Onto.pt 
. Though they should be compatible with MPLv2/LGPLv3+ 
dual license, I am not absolutely sure they are.

These patches are still pending to be merged on master.

It is important that patches submitted are your own work and thus free 
of other license bindings.


If submitting work of others, there are a couple of extra rules to follow:
- The work must be credited to the original author
- you cannot change the license, without the written permission from 
the author (and we have a copy).

- The license must be known and accepted.

We do use the CCA license for a lot of our work, and that is normally ok.

A good advice is to submit original work as a separate patch, followed 
by your work, so that we have the right crediting in our git logs.


Can someone with more knowledgeable of this licensing terms advise me 
on this matter, so I can proceed with the subscription to the 
licence, and these former patches can be made useful to others.


I hope to have answered your good questions and look forward to see 
your license statement, as well as more patches :-)


Have a good weekend.
rgds
jan I.

PS - Apologies for the former unrevised email. This email 
punctuation, spelling and grammar revision from the former one.


No problem.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http

Re: Tiago Santos license statement doubt

[jan iversen]

Hi

For some reason, your email was duplicated, but let me try to answer your 
questions.

First of all let me say it is nice to see someone take the license seriously, a 
lot of people says "Lets do it without license" and believes that makes their 
software open and free.


> Recently, I have been pointed to the Get Involved page, and I would like to 
> subscribe to the license terms posted there, though I would like to ask 
> advice about my previous submissions before proceeding.
I am the culpit, who commented on your bugzilla patches.

> The first patch is a corrected merge of European Portuguese and Brazilian 
> LibreOffice auto-correction files, explained and submitted on bug 97439.
> I do not have many doubts about this patch since it was based on two files 
> already present in LibreOffice, and as such, they should also be licensed 
> under MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
You submitted it as an attachment to bugzilla, and these follow the footer note 
on 
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/ "Source code form contributions such as 
patches are considered to be modifications under the Mozilla Public License 
v2.0."

Furthermore you did not directly merge them into the master branch, I did that 
in your name, acting as a "guarantee" for the license.

We do accept smaller patches without a license statement, but as soon as you 
submit something bigger or more complicated, the license statement is demanded, 
to avoid any doubt.

> The main doubts come from the second patch and third patches, posted on bug 
> 101616. They are vastly increased thesaurus for European Portuguese language 
> (though the third patch may be suitable for Brazilian Portuguese after 
> review).
> These last two patches were posted as a package with a copy of the base 
> licenses since they are based in the already existing thesaurus from 
> LibreOffice (MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license) and two other European Portuguese 
> academic ontologies with free distribution licenses. I requested email 
> approval from of the author, in addition to the public claim of free use from 
> project PAPEL, and Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license from 
> project Onto.pt. Though they should be compatible with MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual 
> license, I am not absolutely sure they are.
These patches are still pending to be merged on master.

It is important that patches submitted are your own work and thus free of other 
license bindings.

If submitting work of others, there are a couple of extra rules to follow:
- The work must be credited to the original author
- you cannot change the license, without the written permission from the author 
(and we have a copy).
- The license must be known and accepted.

We do use the CCA license for a lot of our work, and that is normally ok.

A good advice is to submit original work as a separate patch, followed by your 
work, so that we have the right crediting in our git logs.

> Can someone with more knowledgeable of this licensing terms advise me on this 
> matter, so I can proceed with the subscription to the licence, and these 
> former patches can be made useful to others.
> 
I hope to have answered your good questions and look forward to see your 
license statement, as well as more patches :-)

Have a good weekend.
rgds
jan I.

> PS - Apologies for the former unrevised email. This email punctuation, 
> spelling and grammar revision from the former one.

No problem.___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Tiago Santos license statement doubt

[Tiago Santos]

Good evening,

I am here after submitting a few patches in Bugzilla.
Recently, I have been pointed to the Get Involved page, and I would like 
to subscribe to the license terms posted there, though I would like to 
ask advice about my previous submissions before proceeding.


The first patch is a corrected merge of European Portuguese and 
Brazilian LibreOffice auto-correction files, explained and submitted on 
bug 97439.
I do not have many doubts about this patch since it was based on two 
files already present in LibreOffice, and as such, they should also be 
licensed under MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.


The main doubts come from the second patch and third patches, posted on 
bug 101616. They are vastly increased thesaurus for European Portuguese 
language (though the third patch may be suitable for Brazilian 
Portuguese after review).
These last two patches were posted as a package with a copy of the base 
licenses since they are based in the already existing thesaurus from 
LibreOffice (MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license) and two other European 
Portuguese academic ontologies with free distribution licenses. I 
requested email approval from of the author, in addition to the public 
claim of free use from project PAPEL, and Creative Commons Attribution 
3.0 Unported license from project Onto.pt. Though they should be 
compatible with MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license, I am not absolutely sure 
they are.


Can someone with more knowledgeable of this licensing terms advise me on 
this matter, so I can proceed with the subscription to the licence, and 
these former patches can be made useful to others.



Best regards,

Tiago Santos


PS - Apologies for the former unrevised email. This email punctuation, 
spelling and grammar revision from the former one.


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

Tiago Santos license statement doubt

[Tiago Santos]

Good evening,

I am here after submitting a few patches in Bugzilla.
Recently, I have been pointed to the Get Involved page, and I would like to 
subscribe to the license terms posted there, though I would like to ask advice 
about my previous submissions before proceeding.

The first patch is a corrected merge of European Portuguese and Brazilian 
LibreOffice auto-correction files explained and submitted on bug 97439.

I do not have many doubts about this patch since it was based on two files 
already present in LibreOffice, and as such, they also be licensed under  have 
also MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.

The main doubts come from the second patch and third patches posted on bug 
101616 are vastly increased thesaurus for European Portuguese language (though 
the third patch may be suitable for Brazilian Portuguese after review).
These last two patches were posted as a package with a copy of the base 
licenses since they are based in the already existing thesaurus from 
LibreOffice (MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license) and two other European Portuguese 
academic ontologies with free distribution licenses. I requested email approval 
from of the author, in addition to the public claim of free use from project 
PAPEL and Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license from project 
Onto.pt. Though they should be compatible with MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license I am 
not absolutely sure they are.

Can someone with more knowledgeable of this licensing terms advise me on this 
matter, so I can proceed with the subscription to the licence and these former 
patches may be useful to others.
Best regards,

Tiago Santos

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