Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

2013-03-10 Thread Simon Phipps
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> In Andrea's post, the contribution page on the AOO Wiki is offered as the
> Apache OpenOffice response to Jim Jagielski's question:

Thanks, Dennis - I'd pieced all that together from the posts I could
find. What surprised me though was that the question was asked to the
Apache PMC in private but directed to the TDF discussion list in
public - hence my question to Andrea who posted the summary
(that's presumably still stuck in moderation).

S.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

2013-03-10 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
@Simon: Andrea Pescetti cross-posted to [tdf-discuss] and [openoffice-dev] some 
clarifying information, but his sending from an @apache.org e-mail is 
apparently hung up in a moderation queue - he has probably not subscribed with 
that one.  So you are seeing threads following from it that [tdf-discuss] 
hasn't actually seen yet (except under a cross-posted response from Louis [;<).

In Andrea's post, the contribution page on the AOO Wiki is offered as the 
Apache OpenOffice response to Jim Jagielski's question: 
.

On rereading that a few times, I do find that it is less circumspect than the 
equivalent TDF page. 

Part of the disconnect is that LibreOffice contributors don't usually put 
notices on the contribution.  A separate, one-time declaration is used.  
Clearly, not all of the declaration-granted licenses are necessarily used or 
shown in the code release (i.e., MPL has not been used).  

The iCLA recorded by ASF committers does not stipulate any specific open-source 
license (let alone dual-licensing) whatsoever and it basically empowers ASF to 
release the contribution under any license insofar as it is compatible with the 
individual iCLA grant.  (The ALv2 does not require someone to stipulate the 
Apache License either.  The AOO contribution page is incorrect about that.  The 
default for a contribution is as I mention in my reply.)

In each case though, the grants/declarations are specifically to the project 
the contribution is submitted to.  They don't, in themselves, apply to anyone 
else.

Now, with that context, here is my reply to Pescetti's post on AOO (I didn't 
want to cross-post or continue the cross-quoting):

From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] 
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 09:09
To: d...@openoffice.apache.org
Cc: 'Jim Jagielski'
Subject: RE: Dual licensing of patches and code

It is not clear to me that the Apache OpenOffice statement answers the
question as it was asked at [tdf-discuss].  I read Jim's question as
being about multi-licensing (dual- or more).  Not about a contributor
making a contribution of their original work in two places and under
different licenses in each place.  That's very different.

If the AOO page is considered an affirmative response to Jim's question, 
then so is Florian Effenberger's pointing to The Document Foundation 
license-policy page, 
.

For me, multi-licensing would be a kind of one-stop contribution that
allows the contribution to be used by those who obtain it in accordance 
with whichever of the multi-licensings they choose.  

Nothing is done to facilitate that by either project.  Furthermore, 
all of the licenses that are considered have strings on how a contri-
bution is accounted for in any combined/derivative work.

By the way, there is no mention of the Apache License (any version) 
in the iCLA that is offered to the ASF and that all committers have
on record.  It strikes me that a contribution in accordance with the
default case in section 5 of the ALv2 is similarly entirely about 
sections 2, 3 and related definitions.  The sections about recipients 
is not something that governs the contributor's use of their own 
contribution (a good reason those are not in the iCLA, since an iCLA 
is entirely about contribution).  
Cf. .

The manner in which TDF collects license grants is 
rather different, with contributors specifying the licenses that 
their work can be released under (i.e., they are multi-licensing
their contributions).

From all of this, you can surmise what I mean to accomplish by my
blanket, public grants regarding my contributions to LibreOffice and 
Apache projects, so that anyone can make us of those contributions,
no matter which project the contributed is made to, with the same 
permissiveness granted to the ASF in an Apache iCLA.  And that can
be done without my having to make direct contributions in more than
one of those places.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 08:25
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org; Andrea Pescetti
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

> On 13-03-09, at 05:39 , Andrea Pescetti  wrote:
>
> The conversation below happened in public, but not on the OpenOffice
> public lists. I believe it's  good to record its outcome here on the 
> OpenOffice
> dev list too.

Do you know why the question was asked and settled in secret at Apache
but has been posed in public at TDF? It seems odd and perhaps
political that should happen.

S.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All message

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

2013-03-08 Thread Andrew Douglas Pitonyak


My reading of the answers is

1. It depends on how interesting they find the contribution.

2. Some members would vote no because the code is also available under a 
more permissive license.


It is clear that if you provide code to AOO, then LO is able to take the 
code, but it is not clear that they would choose to do so.


Someone suggested posting to the DEV list. I assume that this means that 
you should email them, tell them what the contributions are, and then 
see if they will accept those contributions under the guidelines you state.


Perhaps I misunderstood the answers.


On 03/07/2013 09:11 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

Hence my (and others) confusion...

It's a pretty easy question; at it's basic:

Would code provided under ALv2+MPL+LGPLv3 be acceptable
to TDF and LO?

On Mar 7, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Jürgen Schmidt  wrote:


back from vacation I stumbled over this interesting thread and for
whatever reason my mail filter skipped Florian's answer.

But after asking if I missed a reply I was pointed on
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy which is an
interesting page to read.

Is it possible that this page is somewhat outdated and doesn't reflect
the current state of the project. I don't read anything about the Apache
License and that the project is now based on the Apache OpenOffice code
base. Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to change the license
header in the way it was done for LO 4.0. Maybe worth to add a section
to explain this and to avoid confusion.

It really confuses me and I am now lost a little bit. How can I as
individual contributor know where the code comes from originally.


Juergen


On 3/5/13 6:32 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
an answer from TDF as well.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
any and all responses :)


On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


Hello there.

This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.

Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
general, these people have code that directly patches LO
but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
license their contributions as they see fit. However,
I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
the ASF.

Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.

Thank you.





--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code

2013-03-05 Thread Florian Effenberger

Hello Jim,

thank you for your e-mail. You'll find TDF's policy on this subject 
here: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy


Best,
Florian


Jim Jagielski wrote on 2013-03-05 18:32:


On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


So far, I've rec'd an answer from AOO... I'd appreciate
an answer from TDF as well.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


BTW, Please be sure that I'm on the CC list, so I get
any and all responses :)


On Mar 4, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:


Hello there.

This Email is being directed to the 2 controlling bodies of
the Apache OpenOffice Project and LibreOffice (TDF). You will
notice that I am sending this from my non-ASF account.

Recently, at various conferences, I have been approached by
numerous people, both 100% volunteer as well as more "corporate"
affiliated, wondering if it was OK for them to submit code,
patches and fixes to both AOO and LO at the same time. In
general, these people have code that directly patches LO
but they also want to dual-license the code such that it
can also be consumed by AOO even if it requires work and
modification for it to be committed to, and folded into,
the AOO repo. My response has always been that as the
orig author of their code/patches/whatever, they can
license their contributions as they see fit. However,
I have been told that they have rec'd word that such
dual-licensed code would not be accepted by, or acceptable
to, either the AOO project and/or LO and/or TDF and/or
the ASF.

Therefore, I am asking for official confirmation from
both projects and both entities that both projectsSo
are fully OK with accepting code/patches/etc that
are licensed in such a way as to be 100% consumable
by both projects. For example, if I have a code patch
which is dual-licensed both under LGPLv3 and ALv2, that
such a patch would be acceptable to both LO and AOO.

Thank you.










--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted