https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150433
--- Comment #5 from Theppitak Karoonboonyanan <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eike Rathke from comment #3) > Apparently we don't have your license statement on file, could you > please send us a blanket statement that you contribute all your past and > future patches under the MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ licenses? Best on the dev > mailing list [email protected] so we can link to it from > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers > > Something like this does nicely: > > All of my past & future contributions to LibreOffice may be > licensed under the MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license. > > Best use Subject: <your full name> license statement > > Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for cooperating :-) The license of this patch is specified in th_TH/README_thes_th_TH.txt as CC-0 1.0, based on the data source it was converted from. Of course, it could either be CC-0 as before to maintain its permissiveness, or be relicensed to MPLv2/LGPLv3+ if required by the project. In case it could be CC-0, would it conflict with my license statement to always have my contributions be under MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license? Or would it simply be overridden by the license statement in the patch? In general, I prefer my future code contributions to be under MPLv2/LGPLv3+, BTW, but the source of this one is such permissive. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
