On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > 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. >
But the "practice" is not backed by a CLA or a code audit. So what exactly LO has is "license soup" as far as I am concerned. I can't touch it, though corporations that have no proprietary software business may be unconcerned about such hygiene issues. But I'd note that such an approach will limit the project's success, since large corporations, even if just using open source software, have their own risk calculus to consider. So the work we do on code pedigree audits benefits not just the big bad software vendors. But it also benefits users. -Rob > - 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:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 08:12 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Claudio Filho <filh...@gmail.com> 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 >
