> -----Original Message----- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:00 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording > > > > On 12/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > The TL;DR: > > > > Yes, the license page describes what must be reflected in LICENSE > > and NOTICE files for 3rd party software, and something about the > > software files too. > > > > It does not address how such software comes into a project's > > hands. It is not about acceptance of such software. No > > precedent about that should be read into the policy on how to > > satisfy the third-party license and conditions for notices. > > > > - Dennis > > If we go back to the acceptable licenses for distribution with ALv2 > -- http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > Combined with the instructions for using these "acceptable" > products/ portions, why is it not sufficient to accept that the code > came into the project's hands by virtue of the license used for the > software? In other words, if an author/developer licenses code with > a particular license, is it not the intention of that developer to > have the the product used in accordance with the license? And, if > that is the case, why are any additional requests needed? [orcmid]
I suggest you ask this specific question on the dev@ community.apache.org list or the general@ incubator.apache.org list where you will find more about the notion of "willing contribution." This gets asked regularly, even about using ALv2 code from other Apache Projects. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
