To be precise, the practice is for new contributions to be dual licensed as
LGPL and MPL by the contributor. It remains the case that the main code body
is under LGPL3 with the usual variations for third-party material incorporated
in the release.
- Dennis
PS: Personally, I don't see any advantage to the MPL provision, since LGPL is
not convertible to MPL. I think there is or was some TDF misunderstanding
about the possibility of "relicensing." As far as I know, only the owner of
copyright has a choice about licensing. E.g., Oracle licensed the
OpenOffice.org code base that was under its copyright to Apache in a different
way than it had licensed to others. That's separate from the general but
narrow availability of that code under the LGPL from both Sun and Oracle.
The license that code arrives into someone's hands under is the license
that must be honored, even for public-domain works (which require no license
and will remain public-domain forever). If a work is specifically
multi-licensed, one can choose which one(s) to honor.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 08:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Claudio Filho <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am not a lawer but i did a work of licenses some time ago[1], and i
> read many of main licenses, and a thing that i listened in all was
> that only the license holder can changes his work. So, my ask is:
> Oracle gave permission to TDF to add GPL and MPL for LibO?
> [1]http://claudiocomputing.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/comparativo-entre-grupos-de-licencas/
>
When LO says they are under MPL, I think they mean that only for new
contributions, where the contributor agreed to place their
contribution under MPL (or whatever). The remainder of the code, the
original OOo code, is under LGPL.
-Rob
> Or this is a "dead letter", where i can get a software and do what i
> think/wish?
>
> Best,
> Claudio
