Hello Yaron, On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 05:37:48PM +0300, Yaron Shahrabani wrote: > If it was truly open you wouldn't have to sign that you agree with it, just > saying...
I'm not sure if I understand the "have to sign" and how it relates to openness, but if it means that you have to sign some sort of licence agreement, then that's not the case. Let me quote two examples: * nds-DE locale data contributed by Timo Putzer <[email protected]> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/i18npool/source/localedata/data/nds_DE.xml * tt-RU locale data contributed by Irek Khaziev <[email protected]> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/i18npool/source/localedata/data/tt_RU.xml Timo and Irek didn't have to sign anything in order to contribute. They just had to state that their contribution was licensed under the Apache License; these statements were even implicit, as the locale data files they contributed had the ALv2 header, see the attachments on the respective bug reports https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124611 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=124631 These examples also show the benefits of the Apache Licence openness, which allows that your contribution can be "consumed" by other projects, derived or not, for example: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/i18npool/source/localedata/data/nds_DE.xml http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/i18npool/source/localedata/data/tt_RU.xml Also note that, in this example, code flows in one direction, as they don't contribute their changes back. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
pgp9LcvvYtV4s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
