Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have
copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today.
There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any
lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo
code under LGPL v3. They could have put "LGPL v3 or later" or "LGPL v3
or +". But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo
into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to
change it, which is unlikely with Oracle.
In LGPL v3, clause 2, letter b) is written: "then you may convey a copy
of the modified version: [...] under the GNU ***GPL***, with none of the
additional permissions of this License applicable to that copy.".
It's the "LGPL to GPL upgrade clause" of LGPL 2.1 revisited.
A choice is still possible, between LGPL and GPL.
I don't want to start a religion war, so I'm just stating that a
licensing change it's still possible. :)
About the rest of your message, I largely agree with you, although a
written statement from code contributors in which it's written "I'm the
only author and I own the copyright and any other derived right related
to my contributed code" would be really a good thing before starting a
"TDF labelled" distribution of LibO.
It'd be to prevent distribution liability for TDF or its founders or its
members in case of unlawful contribution from third parties.
You know it and you've written it too: lawyers love deep pockets when
suing... ;-)
Regards,
--
Gianluca Turconi
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to [email protected]
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
