On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 09:35 +0200, Lennard Wasserthal wrote:
> I publish my patch
...
> under the terms of the LGPLv3+ and MPL dual license.
> An next time I will write it directly to avoid unnecessary mails.
Thanks for your contribution ! :-) it's simply brilliant to have people
working on bug fixing and improving the product.
As for the boring paper-work; it makes my life -significantly- easier,
if instead of having to track and associated an archived license
statement per-patch; you could give a blanket license statement. This is
what linkage into:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers
is really for - see some of the samples there; Cedric - please don't
link single license statements into there without some annotation "just
one patch" or something - otherwise reviewers can get confused. Of
course, I check all the links there as I build my database but ... ;-)
Anyhow - excited by the contribution, and looking forward to your
next ! :-)
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
