On 1/16/2012 10:28, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi Michael;
Just to be clear ...
I am not a lawyer, and even if I were whatever I say in
respect to licensing doesn't have any legal permission
or state any rule wrt what should be done.
just to make that clear :).
--- Lun 16/1/12, Michael Meeks<michael.me...@suse.com> ha scritto:
Hi Pedro,
On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 06:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
What will happen is that the code will keep the
MPL/LGPL3
restrictions in addition to the AL2.
That would be the plan; though our code
will -emphatically- not be
available under the AL2; only an MPL/LGPLv3+ [as well as
any lingering terms from the AL2].
In the projects I participate we never *ever* replace a
license, we just add a copyright header with our license
when relevant. I would expect LO will have to comply
with AL2, adding the respective restrictions imposed
by your own licensing scheme (MPL/GPL).
- They will have to carry the AL2 license among their
code
and headers, and the clause 5 is particularly nice to
have.
Clause five of the AL2 is:
"5. Submission of Contributions. Unless
You explicitly state
otherwise, any Contribution
intentionally submitted for
inclusion in the Work by You
to the Licensor shall be under the
terms and conditions of this
License, without any additional
terms or conditions.
Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein
shall supersede or modify the
terms of any separate license
agreement you may have
executed with Licensor regarding such
Contributions."
IANAL, but to create a superabundance of
clarity - no contribution
submitted to LibreOffice is a 'Contribution'. It is not
submitted to
'Licensor' which is ASF (cf. definition of Contribution).
The TDF
infrastructure is not /managed by, or on behalf of, the
ASF/.
Issue 5 only applies to contributions made to the Apache
project. Surely the code that has been contributed to LO
cannot be taken by us unless the author specifically
authorizes sends it to us too.
If it would help to clarify this, we can
add a "Not a contribution"
line or similar language to our new (MPL/LGPL)onAL2 header
as/when we've got that worked through.
This type of sillyness, attempting to obfuscate the language,
is one of the reasons why I keep away from projects with
unreadable licenses.
Of course, individuals are quite at
liberty to choose to license their
contributions to the ASF if they so choose, and to include
-their- code
into either project; though that is something I'd
personally
discourage :-)
So - any expansion on "is particularly
nice to have" would be helpful
Pedro - why do you think this is particularly nice ? :-)
It is really nice because in this project we don't request
silly licensing statements. We assume people are not
stupid enough to send us code that we can't use. Here
the term "stupid" has the same connotation as defined in
Carlo Cipola's classical paper:
http://cantrip.org/stupidity.html
(BTW, Anyone has a link to the original in italian?)
cheers,
Pedro.
http://www.amazon.com/Allegro-non-troppo-Contrappunti-Italian/dp/8815019804/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1/185-0371021-4419420
A commercial link, but maybe a good starting point.
--
/tj/
