Well, it is not the OCA or ICLA that is passed onward. So the question is, I think, is there any difference in how the OCA allowed Oracle to license the contributions and how the ICLA allows Apache to license contributions? There is one obvious difference: Apache can't enter into a private license nor create a sublicense that is incompatible with the license they are given in the ICLA. Oracle has the power, under the OCA, to create whatever licenses it wanted and even make further transfers of copyright.
In practice, the LGPL license from Oracle and the ALv2 license from Apache both permit sublicensing, but the ALv2 is more permissive in lacking the reciprocity requirement. As Thorsten has observed, it means he gives up more exclusive rights if he can't count on reciprocity and wants to require it. I don't agree that both allow the receiving entity to issue the contribution under any license they want to. Definitely for Oracle but I don't think so for Apache, even though the ICLA does not identify the license Apache will use. (You have to trust that the foundation rules for Apache prevent the obvious transgressions and they must be aware what some dramatic change of direction would do with regard to their community base.) IANAL and I don't know whether sublicensing of ALV2 licensed code as LGPL falls under the notion of "sublicensing." But I suspect the requirement that the ALv2 license/notice be attached is not something a sublicense can work around. That is, a sublicense can't be *more* permissive than the license that is being sublicensed. I could find no precedent for that in examples of sublicensing (admittedly, using Web sources of questionable virtue). - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Bernhard Dippold [mailto:bernh...@familie-dippold.at] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 04:18 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing? Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all thanks for pointing to this very topic. So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably minor consequences in code usage: While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts. Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single case authorization) they want to. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
