Well, the intent for AOOo from the very beginning was to provide an ALv2
licensed version of the OOo codebase for *all* codebases in the OOo
ecosystem to be able to consume. The very fact that LO and TDF are
also implying that this makes sense by admitting that they will be
AOOo consumers is nice.
On 24 May 2012 12:44, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> Thanks for the pointer Shane. Its a shame people can't see this for what it
>> is. The LO team are taking a step that makes collaboration easier from a
>> technical point of view. This is a good thin
Well, the intent for AOOo from the very beginning was to provide an ALv2
licensed version of the OOo codebase for *all* codebases in the OOo
ecosystem to be able to consume. The very fact that LO and TDF are
also implying that this makes sense by admitting that they will be
AOOo consumers is nice.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 22:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> There is very little code of value in AOO that can simply be copied
>> as-is into LO and then never touched again. Typically the code will
>> need to be modified when initially merged
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 22:31 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> It seems to be based on an interesting theory about what an SGA
>> actually does. It seems to assume that the SGA itself puts the code
>> under the Apache License.
>
>
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer Shane. Its a shame people can't see this for what it
> is. The LO team are taking a step that makes collaboration easier from a
> technical point of view. This is a good thing.
>
> Yes, the sharing of code is still one w
Thanks for the pointer Shane. Its a shame people can't see this for what it
is. The LO team are taking a step that makes collaboration easier from a
technical point of view. This is a good thing.
Yes, the sharing of code is still one way, unless individual contributors
decide to submit patches to
t is part of the ASF operation in the public interest that there is no problem
with this, I say.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 19:31
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: LibreOffice relicensing efforts
On Wed,
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 22:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> There is very little code of value in AOO that can simply be copied
> as-is into LO and then never touched again. Typically the code will
> need to be modified when initially merged into LO. But then, as bugs
> are fixed or the feature is enh
Hi Rob,
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 22:31 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> It seems to be based on an interesting theory about what an SGA
> actually does. It seems to assume that the SGA itself puts the code
> under the Apache License.
Ah - I can see how you get there from the pre-amble; the empha
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:20 AM, drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 23:13 +0900, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>> Hi Louis,
>>
>> We can start sharing codes.
>
> That is not really what it says, nor what it means IMO.
>
> With regard to the MPL specifically, I asked during a session on
> licensing at t
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> In case folks haven't seen this:
>
> http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>
> Which points to:
>
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
>
> So it looks like there will be plenty of code sharing! 8-
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:43:43AM -0400, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> In case folks haven't seen this:
>
> http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>
> Which points to:
>
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
>
> So it looks like there will be plenty of co
On 05/23/12 14:58, Donald Whytock wrote:
Um, guys? As this concerns a LibreOffice webpage over which the AOO
committers largely have no control, is it better to have this argument
here or on a LibreOffice-related list?
Don
Hmm.. yes that was my last comment :).
(back to coding)
Pedro.
LO(L).
Lots of Love,
Louis
On 2012-05-23, at 15:58 , Donald Whytock wrote:
> Um, guys? As this concerns a LibreOffice webpage over which the AOO
> committers largely have no control, is it better to have this argument
> here or on a LibreOffice-related list?
>
> Don
Um, guys? As this concerns a LibreOffice webpage over which the AOO
committers largely have no control, is it better to have this argument
here or on a LibreOffice-related list?
Don
On 05/23/12 11:49, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Pedro,
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 10:36 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
There are no details of the relicensing process but doesn't look
very clean to me:
- They are basically assuming that OOo 3.3.x (where they started
has been relicensed under ALv2, which is
On 2012-05-23, at 10:20 , drew wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 23:13 +0900, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>> Hi Louis,
>>
>> We can start sharing codes.
>
> That is not really what it says, nor what it means IMO.
Quite.
>
> With regard to the MPL specifically, I asked during a session on
> licensin
On 2012-05-23, at 10:13 , Kazunari Hirano wrote:
> Hi Louis,
>
> We can start sharing codes.
The licenses would seem to permit it, as MPLv2 is seemingly compatible with
AL2. However, the language of this page,
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing , is less
encouraging,
Hi Pedro,
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 10:36 -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> There are no details of the relicensing process but doesn't look
> very clean to me:
> - They are basically assuming that OOo 3.3.x (where they started
> has been relicensed under ALv2, which is not true.
This is emphatic
FWIW,
And with the traditional IANAL disclaimer:
On 05/23/12 08:43, Shane Curcuru wrote:
In case folks haven't seen this:
http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
Which points to:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
There are no details of the
On 23.05.2012 15:43, Shane Curcuru wrote:
In case folks haven't seen this:
http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
Which points to:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Relicensing
So it looks like there will be plenty of code sharing! 8->
In both directions?
-A
On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 23:13 +0900, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
> Hi Louis,
>
> We can start sharing codes.
That is not really what it says, nor what it means IMO.
With regard to the MPL specifically, I asked during a session on
licensing at the recent Apache Barcamp the question of mixing MPL within
Hi Louis,
We can start sharing codes.
I like it.
:)
Thanks,
khirano
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> See below
>
> (Nonsense words? iPad's spellchecker.)
>
> -- Louis Suárez-Potts
>
>
>
> On 2012-05-23, at 9:55, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>
>> Hi Shane,
>>
>> Thanks for
See below
(Nonsense words? iPad's spellchecker.)
-- Louis Suárez-Potts
On 2012-05-23, at 9:55, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> Thanks for the links.
> It's good. I like it.
What do you like?
> :)
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>
Hi Shane,
Thanks for the links.
It's good. I like it.
:)
Thanks,
khirano
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> In case folks haven't seen this:
>
> http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>
> Which points to:
>
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Developm
26 matches
Mail list logo
