Since you answered a different question and continue to allege your question has not been answered, I will ask again:
How could you infer *from any earlier answer* that triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused as you allege? Like Andrew Pitonyak and Jonathon Blake I read exactly the opposite in the multiple, detailed answers you've received. S. On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > "How could I infer"? Because, as I stated, it was > *specifically* inferred to other entities who subsequently > asked me if I knew the "real" answer. > > As such, I specifically asked the 2 controlling bodies of > the 2 projects. I rec'd a responses quickly from AOO, but > none was coming from LO, and therefore I had to broaden > my "contact" on that end, and was even directed/suggested > to do so, which I did. > > The ASF and AOO have no issue with patches which are > dual-licensed (alv2-lgplv3) or triple-licensed (alv2-mpl-lgplv3). > They are on records as saying so. I am simply seeing if > TDF and LO are just as willing. So far, more time has been > spent on bypassing the question than simply answering it. > > On Mar 10, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > > How could you possibly infer from any earlier answer that > > triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused? Like Andrew > > Pitonyak I read exactly the opposite. > > > > Florian said that in the sort of theoretical argument you're > > attempting, "code under a triple license is just as acceptable" and > > explained why, just as at Apache, the actual acceptability of any > > contribution in practical terms is about much more than just the > > copyright license. I struggle to see how that could be misunderstood, > > especially by someone I know to be highly intelligent and experienced. > > > > S. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> > >> Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code > >> to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed > >> (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct? > >> If so, what, exactly, is the reason? > >> > >> tia! > >> > >> On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger < > flor...@effenberger.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Jim, > >>> > >>> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05: > >>> > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to LibreOffice > and be part of our community, we require a dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for > contributions, which gives everyone the benefit of the strong rights these > licenses grant. From time to time, depending on the specific case and the > quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces of code > with compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on its merits. > >>> > >>>> 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 > >>> In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In > practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers working as a > team together, doing the actual code review and acceptance work. There is a > spectrum of developer opinion on your nurturing of a competing project. > Many core developers may be less inclined to invest their time into > significant, active assistance: mentoring, reviewing, finding code > pointers, merging, back porting, and so on, for functionality that will not > provide a distinctive value for LibreOffice. > >>> > >>> So, while there may be many possible acceptable variations of inbound > license and contributions, there are likely relational consequences of > those choices that are hard to quantify. Having said that, all developers > who want to contribute constructively to LibreOffice are welcome in our > community, and we have a high degree of flexibility to fulfill their > genuine needs. The best thing to do is just to point them to our developers > list. > >>> > >>> Florian > >>> > >> > > > > -- *Simon Phipps* http://webmink.com *Meshed Insights & Knowledge * *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027 *Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816* * -- 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
