RE: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell the right to relicense his/her contribution under other licensing terms. This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code. Thank you for the example. I have to respect the fact the Novell is being very honest and open about it. Conversely, when discussing the JCA, Sun studiously avoids mentioning the fact that the JCA allows Sun to relicense contributions under any license it choose, including a commercial license. Here for example is this same pattern of avoidance right here in your post: In OpenOffice.org the JCA is required only for code contributed to the core product so that in case a relicencing might become necessary or desirable (e.g. a licence change from LGPLv2 to (L)GPLv3) this can be done easily. I think these discussion are very valuable, so that contributors, potential contributors and users can all understand the license terms and its implications. Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
Allen, Le 5 févr. 08 à 21:00, Allen Pulsifer a écrit : Heck, even the FSF does that... You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that allows it to license the contribution under any terms it wants, including a commercial license? Please direct me to the web page at fsf.org that says this. You're mixing two things here: license and copyright. The very fact of owning the copyright automatically gives you the right to relicense the software covered by your copyright under any terms you wish, and this applies to the FSF just like anybody. What the FSF does not do, of course is to develop its software under a dual license of course. What I'm saying about the FSF applies to every software that is called GNU, or more exactly the software projects that have given their copyright to the FSF (i.e, the GNU project): https:// savannah.gnu.org/ (check the copyright notices of the software) I'm surprized that you didn't know this, Allen. By the way, what I'm describing (copyright) is exactly what allows a company like MySQL to have a dual license strategy (GPL + commercial license) Best, Charles. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Butler Office Pro - really a violation ?
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/assigning.html https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-assign.html Martin Allen Pulsifer wrote: Heck, even the FSF does that... You're telling me that the FSF will not accept contributions to an open source project unless it is given an assignment of copyright that allows it to license the contribution under any terms it wants, including a commercial license? Please direct me to the web page at fsf.org that says this. Allen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
