How could I infer? Because, as I stated, it was
*specifically* inferred to other entities who subsequently
asked me if I knew the real answer.
As such, I specifically asked the 2 controlling bodies of
the 2 projects. I rec'd a responses quickly from AOO, but
none was coming from LO, and therefore
Since you answered a different question and continue to allege your
question has not been answered, I will ask again:
How could you infer *from any earlier answer* that triple-licensed
contributions would be inherently refused as you allege? Like
Andrew Pitonyak and Jonathon Blake I read exactly
exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply
boils down to it depends, which is really no answer at
all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of
the alv2 as part of the license suite *does* change
the dynamic, since something provided under mpl-lgplv3
as not handed the
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
exhaustively, yes, but not concretely. The exhaustive reply
boils down to it depends, which is really no answer at
all. Furthermore, it implies that the simply inclusion of
the alv2 as part of the license suite *does*
Hello Jim,
There's something quite wrong in this conversation. Some entity -a
corporation or a government- has approached you and asked you questions
on how to contribute to LibreOffice (by the way, please be so kind as
using the term LibreOffice and not LO).
As the Chairman of the Apache
As stated, they contacted me because they had been
told that such licensing was not accepted to BOTH
parties, not just one. This should have been clear
from my 1st post. That is why I asked both parties.
On Mar 11, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Jim,
I do not know who made these assertions to this entity, however it is
really important to understand that it was not the Document
Foundation. We have never been in contact with such parties.
Let me stress again that it is necessary for this entity to contact us
directly.
Thanks,
Charles.
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Jim,
I do not know who made these assertions to this entity, however it is
really important to understand that it was not the Document
Foundation. We have never been in contact with such parties.
On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen bjoern.michael...@canonical.com
wrote:
Hi Jim,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:42:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code
to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed
Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code
to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed
(alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct?
If so, what, exactly, is the reason?
tia!
On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Florian Effenberger flor...@effenberger.org
How could you possibly infer from any earlier answer that
triple-licensed contributions would be inherently refused? Like Andrew
Pitonyak I read exactly the opposite.
Florian said that in the sort of theoretical argument you're
attempting, code under a triple license is just as acceptable and
On 03/10/2013 01:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
unable to get a simple answer should be proof-positive
You were given an official answer.
have also have been unable to get a clear, official answer as well.
If the code is crap, it doesn't matter what license is used, it will not
be accepted.
If
Hi Jim,
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:42:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Just so I'm clear: If a company wishes to contribute code
to TDF/LO, but wants their contributions to be triple-licensed
(alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct?
That was not what either Florian or the
The 'problem' is that I've been approached by a number of
corp, gov't and non-profits who wish to contribute to LO
but want their donations to also be covered under the ALv2.
They have heard back that code under ALv2 will not be accepted
by TDF and LO and that patches must be under LGPLv3+MPL to
For corporate entities, this is not optimal... they need legal to
sign off on any donations, and such a single donation is
much easier. If a donation is triple-licensed mpl+alv2+lgpgv2
would that be accepted by TDF?
On Mar 6, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Florian Reisinger reisi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Hi Jim,
Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-06 16:05:
I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
nothing else, is such a patch acceptable.
as our licensing page
Thanks for the reply, but the policy doesn't answer my specific question.
I have a patch which is written for LibreOffice. However,
I want to provide that patch to LO under both LGPLv3 AND ALv2.
Based *solely* on the fact that it is dual-licensed and
nothing else, is such a patch acceptable.
Hi,
I am gonna try to answer your question, although I am not that experienced:
If you are the author of the code, you may send it in as MPL + LGPLv3
to LibreOffice and to ALv2 to OpenOffice. Might this answer your
question?
Liebe Grüße, / Yours,
Florian Reisinger
Am 06.03.2013 um 16:31
Hello Jim,
while it is hard to understand the problem, in principle, with using any
combination of licenses in addition to the project's preferred
LGPLv3/MPLv2 dual license, do you have a patch or proposal for a patch
submitted to the dev mailing list that we can look at?
Best,
Florian
19 matches
Mail list logo
