On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane <lio...@mamane.lu> wrote: > > I feel we don't gain anything of substance by keeping the SISSL, and > I'm not very strongly opposed to it. If, as a project, LibreOffice > prefers to keep SISSL licensing on that code, I'll agree to it. >
hey, don't get me wrong... I _like_ GPL. If it was up to me I would not even bother with MPL at all... I was just concerned with the compatibility of LGPLv2 with LGPLv3+MPL. and since there is some intent to try to get to some kind of uniform LGPLv3/MPL compatibility... a LGPLv2 only piece did not sound like progress toward that goal. Michael apparently seems ok with dropping SISSL, and he is the biggest proponent of MPL... so if that is good for him and it is the fact that LGPLv2 is not at issue here (wrt with the integation in the 'whole) I don't care that much (actually that make the head smaller, which is a plus :-) ) > > My .emacs applies to *all* C(++) code I open, not only to LO, so > that's IMHO not the right approach. for example, http://www.emacswiki.org/ProjectSettings If you put all that in the variable-line, the only recourse I have to override is to patch emacs to make it ignore it :-( Norbert _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
