On 1/4/2012 6:38 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Mer 4/1/12, Jürgen Schmidt ha scritto:
...
are you sure? For me this special situation seems to be a
little bit different. Either you go forward with the old
code and the old license header and can't merge to the new
code. Or you move forward with the new one and keep the new
license headers and put your change on a different
license. Where you would make the difference which code is
from which code base. For me it sounds practical impossible
because the many thousand files with more or less the same
code.
The problem is that TDF, or whomever adopts the Apache OO
headers, doesn't own the modified (MPL/LGPL3) code so even
if they wanted they can not make it AL2. What will happen
is that the code will keep the MPL/LGPL3 restrictions in
addition to the AL2.
I think most of the LO code is just under LGPL, with only their
additions being dual licensed under MPL (I don't think they can
relicense the LGPL code).
In a similar way, (as I understand it) LO will be able to use ALv2
licensed code - but not relicense it.
Nevertheless there will be two consequences:
- They can have all their code uniformly under LGPL3/MPL2
dual license. The LGPL being so commercially unfriendly,
this practically means they will be MPL2, with the LGPL3
being purely nominal.
- They will have to carry the AL2 license among their code
and headers, and the clause 5 is particularly nice to have.
If you add these two points, and this is all IMHO, the
great loser in all this is the FSF that lost the strong
copyleft over the flag opensource Office suite.
It is really a special situation, isn't it. It would be
interesting to
hear what a lawyer things about it.
Oh .. I am not a lawyer, so it was all meant IMHO :).
cheers,
Pedro.
