Can someone from TDF confirm Simon's statement. If so, then I will point people to that email and we'll be done.
On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply > boils down to "it depends", which is really no answer at > all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of > the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change > the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3 > as not handed the same way "it depends"... Furthermore > it does not describe the actual mechanism. > > On the contrary, the answer to your original question was clearly that the > inclusion of ALv2 in the licensing of a contribution does not per se prevent > it being used. > > You have then been given a more detailed response than appears to have come > from the AOO PMC: that licensing alone is not sufficient for an open source > project to accept any given contribution. > > I don't understand why you continue to agitate and accuse. > > S. > > -- 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
