Hello Jim,
while it is hard to understand the problem, in principle, with using any
combination of licenses in addition to the project's preferred
LGPLv3/MPLv2 dual license, do you have a patch or proposal for a patch
submitted to the dev mailing list that we can look at?
Best,
Florian
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05:
Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question.
I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
nothing else, is such a patch acceptable.
Dropping OpenOffice since they have already indicated that
the answer for them is YES.
And this is not a theoretical question. I have been
approached by people and companies stating that
they wish to help LO but want to provide their code
patches also under ALv2 (for internal legal reasons)
and have been told that TDF and LO refuses to accept such
code/patches/etc *simply* because it is dual/triple/quadruple
licensed under the ALv2.
tia.
On Mar 5, 2013, at 3:08 PM, Florian Effenberger <flo...@documentfoundation.org>
wrote:
Hello Jim,
thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject here:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy
Best,
Florian
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32:
--
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
