I understand that differences between licences are technical and seem trivial to end-users.
So if not the licences, how is LO different from AOO? In terms that end-users can understand. Immanuel On Dec 31, 2012 8:29 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it. > > Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does > not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by > individuals in their business or institutional activities. > > - Dennis > > PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache > License. > > DETAILS > > Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a > perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms. There is > no transfer of ownership whatsoever. (Just for a moment of irony, it was > the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of > ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.) > > You can find the ALv2 everywhere. The Committer License Agreement (CLA) > is here: > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>. > > The key statement is this: > > "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation > and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, > You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to > Your Contributions." > > Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own > (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant. It > is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this. > > This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that > LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific > licenses (and say nothing about patents). > > The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is > not a reciprocal license. It does not require that derivative works be > provided in source code and under the same license. The ALv2 also has no > limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded > system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service. > > The license differences have no practical impact on end users. It does > have ideological importance to contributors. Some end users may want to > express their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such > allegiance, it is valuable to stick to the facts. > > - Dennis > > > -----Original Message----- > From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19 > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences > > [ ... ] > > > > As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding > they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that > project the ownership of the coding. Whether or not the "wording" is > stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have > told me. > > [ ... ] > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > 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 > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
