On 25 October 2011 11:28, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If libreoffice encourages, but not requires, AL2 > > for stuff in the core package, that would be a huge > > advance to get a bit nearer both camps. > > Given licenses are the expression of the ethos of a community, it's > disingenuous and divisive to assume any community will drop its governance > approach like this, Pedro. It translates as "the path to collaboration is > your surrender; we can negotiate once you've done that". You make it sound > so innocent, too, by missing out the other requirement that Apache would > have for contributors to sign an ICLA and thus join Apache :-) >
I didn't interpret it like that. From a practical point of view AL2 can be used and converted downstream, it's not possible for LGPL to be used AL2 so the only way code can be shared is via AL2. If some developers feel strongly about that, they can contribute only to the LGPL licensed pool. If some are not so concerned they can contribute to AL2 because it will work with both. Ok that is effectively a commit to Apache, but since all Apache commits are potentially reusable in a LGPL project, why is that seen as such a one way traffic thing? Really Pedro is simply saying encourage people that don't feel too strongly about it to us the AL2 license. If that is a problem I doubt there is much point in taking the discussion further. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
