Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
- Original Message From: Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org To: michael.me...@novell.com Hi Michael, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. I guess it would be useful to create a wiki page with a FAQ about these license topics :) Just remember, that even with LGPL/GPL the changes _do not have to be contributed back to the community_; only made available to the customers of that product upon request (per LGPL, GPL and MPL). IOW, TDF may not necessarily get the contribution. It's just like any downstream project - they can modify it and don't necessarily have to contribute those modifications back to the upstream project. Sure, it works best when they do as everyone benefits, but they are not _required_ to do so. I only mention this, as it is often overlooked - and in comments like the above - by Meeks and others - they seem to forget that aspect about Copy-Left, LGPL/GPL/MPL. So yes, someone could take LO code directly, make a downstream, proprietary product and sell it - and they only have to make the code to that proprietary version (whether it is identical to the LO version or modified) to those who have purchased their proprietary product. (MPL says for 12 months; FSF recommends per GPL/LGPL 3 years). My point being that Allen is 100% correct, and copy-left does not prevent the situation you all seem to be so concerned about. Remember, Copy-Left is about the End-User, not the Developer. $0.02 Ben ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 07:39 -0700, BRM wrote: Just remember, that even with LGPL/GPL the changes _do not have to be contributed back to the community_; only made available to the customers of that product upon request (per LGPL, GPL and MPL). Not entirely correct. The source has to be made available to the legal recipients of the binary. Whether or not they are customers is irrelevant in this context. IOW, TDF may not necessarily get the contribution. It's just like any downstream project - they can modify it and don't necessarily have to contribute those modifications back to the upstream project. Sure. But we can certainly ask for the source if we are interested, and they are obligated to provide it if we have (legally) received the binary, under the same license as the original source code. This is a very important point. Sure, it works best when they do as everyone benefits, but they are not _required_ to do so. I wouldn't put it that way. It works better for the downstream maintainers if they upstream their work, to make it easier to maintain their own modifications. If they think the benefit outweighs the cost of upstreaming, then they have every right not to upstream their changes. I only mention this, as it is often overlooked - and in comments like the above - by Meeks and others - they seem to forget that aspect about Copy-Left, LGPL/GPL/MPL. I don't think it is overlooked, but is already implied. (MPL says for 12 months; FSF recommends per GPL/LGPL 3 years). This I didn't know. Good to know. My point being that Allen is 100% correct, and copy-left does not prevent the situation you all seem to be so concerned about. Remember, Copy-Left is about the End-User, not the Developer. In the context where copy-left licenses such as GPL/LGPL are used, the end users sometimes (or many times) equal developers. Surely the majority of end users of consumer applications who are not developers or servicers of those apps don't really care about the availability of the source code, though they may care more about the availability of the binaries. They may want to have the source available in case they need to hire consultancies to service the software after the purchase (or download), but even in those cases the direct beneficiaries of the copy-left licenses (often referred to as users in some context) are developers who end up servicing the app for the users of the binary. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc kyosh...@novell.com ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
- Original Message From: Kohei Yoshida kyosh...@novell.com To: BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com Cc: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:44:37 AM Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 07:39 -0700, BRM wrote: Just remember, that even with LGPL/GPL the changes _do not have to be contributed back to the community_; only made available to the customers of that product upon request (per LGPL, GPL and MPL). Not entirely correct. The source has to be made available to the legal recipients of the binary. Whether or not they are customers is irrelevant in this context. When dealing with a proprietary product, they are one-in-the-same, however they present the EULA. IOW, TDF may not necessarily get the contribution. It's just like any downstream project - they can modify it and don't necessarily have to contribute those modifications back to the upstream project. Sure. But we can certainly ask for the source if we are interested, and they are obligated to provide it if we have (legally) received the binary, under the same license as the original source code. This is a very important point. As you pointed out - only if you have a _legal_ right to ask. That won't likely be the case though unless you are their customer. Yes, they can't prevent you from distributing the GPL/LGPL/MPL portion of the work; but they could prevent you from distributing their additions to the degree that the MPL/GPL/LGPL derivative work restrictions apply, if at all. Sure, it works best when they do as everyone benefits, but they are not _required_ to do so. I wouldn't put it that way. It works better for the downstream maintainers if they upstream their work, to make it easier to maintain their own modifications. If they think the benefit outweighs the cost of upstreaming, then they have every right not to upstream their changes. I only mention this, as it is often overlooked - and in comments like the above - by Meeks and others - they seem to forget that aspect about Copy-Left, LGPL/GPL/MPL. I don't think it is overlooked, but is already implied. Overlooked b/c of the nature of the statement. Your next response goes to show it... (MPL says for 12 months; FSF recommends per GPL/LGPL 3 years). This I didn't know. Good to know. Most on FLOSS don't - or don't realize it. But if you stopped and read the license it would become obvious - especially in the MPL case, didn't take me long to find section 3.2, or section 6 of the GPLv3 (specifically 6.d, a-c refer to distributing the object code/binary while 6d covers the source requirement). And, FYI, it doesn't have to be public - it could be behind an access protected service, or simply a write them and let them know you want a CD kind of thing - or even for free. So yes, one could start a company, make a derivative of LO. Offer it for sale; even make modifications, etc. and the only recipients of the changes would be said customers of the proprietary version. Further, they only necessarily have to get the source if they request it in some form, which may or may not happen during the required time period. (There is no requirement in either license beyond the required time period.) So, for example, a customer buys a copy from said company. After 4 years, they find a bug they want fixed, but the company only produced the one version. The customer is then out-of-luck with any ability to gain access to the source - the company is under no obligation to do so. Now suppose the company went out of business 2 years after the sale, they must then setup a means for 1 year by which customers can get the source (supposing Bankruptcy Court/etc allow the estate to meet the requirement). But if they went out of business 3 years and 1 day after the sale then again, there is no further obligation. My point being that Allen is 100% correct, and copy-left does not prevent the situation you all seem to be so concerned about. Remember, Copy-Left is about the End-User, not the Developer. In the context where copy-left licenses such as GPL/LGPL are used, the end users sometimes (or many times) equal developers. Surely the majority of end users of consumer applications who are not developers or servicers of those apps don't really care about the availability of the source code, though they may care more about the availability of the binaries. They may want to have the source available in case they need to hire consultancies to service the software after the purchase (or download), but even in those cases the direct beneficiaries of the copy-left licenses (often referred to as users in some context) are developers who end up servicing the app for the users of the binary. Only if the end-user obtains the source to provide to the developer. The developer may not necessarily
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 12:32 -0700, BRM wrote: - Original Message From: Kohei Yoshida kyosh...@novell.com To: BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com Cc: libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:44:37 AM Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 07:39 -0700, BRM wrote: Just remember, that even with LGPL/GPL the changes _do not have to be contributed back to the community_; only made available to the customers of that product upon request (per LGPL, GPL and MPL). Not entirely correct. The source has to be made available to the legal recipients of the binary. Whether or not they are customers is irrelevant in this context. When dealing with a proprietary product, they are one-in-the-same, however they present the EULA. Not one-in-the-same (sic). But I think we are talking past each other, so I won't discuss any further. Your statement already implies that they are not exactly the same. IOW, TDF may not necessarily get the contribution. It's just like any downstream project - they can modify it and don't necessarily have to contribute those modifications back to the upstream project. Sure. But we can certainly ask for the source if we are interested, and they are obligated to provide it if we have (legally) received the binary, under the same license as the original source code. This is a very important point. As you pointed out - only if you have a _legal_ right to ask. That won't likely be the case though unless you are their customer. Beta test, evaluation versions, demos etc..? There are a number of ways of obtaining the binary legally without being a customer. Yes, they can't prevent you from distributing the GPL/LGPL/MPL portion of the work; but they could prevent you from distributing their additions to the degree that the MPL/GPL/LGPL derivative work restrictions apply, if at all. Sure, it works best when they do as everyone benefits, but they are not _required_ to do so. I wouldn't put it that way. It works better for the downstream maintainers if they upstream their work, to make it easier to maintain their own modifications. If they think the benefit outweighs the cost of upstreaming, then they have every right not to upstream their changes. I only mention this, as it is often overlooked - and in comments like the above - by Meeks and others - they seem to forget that aspect about Copy-Left, LGPL/GPL/MPL. I don't think it is overlooked, but is already implied. Overlooked b/c of the nature of the statement. Your next response goes to show it... I don't understand the connection. Only if the end-user obtains the source to provide to the developer. Of course. The developer may not necessarily be granted the right by the proprietary distributor to get direct access to the source. So I still maintain that it is end-users and not _necessarily_ developers that Copy-left is about. Ok. This is already becoming a meaningless word game. My point basically is that the distinction between the end users and developers are not necessarily clear cut when talking about copy-left licenses. No more no less. And I believe, based on what you said you also agree with that. However, if I as a developer come along and tell them that I could add some feature to it, they would need to ask for and obtain the source code for me if that was necessary. Of course. I never said that the developers didn't have to get the source code to service the software. Anyway, this is already off-topic here on this list. I suggest we end this thread here, and if anybody is interested on pursuing this, take it to a more appropriate list. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc kyosh...@novell.com ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
[Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
If I understand correctly: What is developed by the Apache license can be used at LibreOffice but what is done by LibreOffice can not be used by OpenOffice as OpenOffice would move to offer the principles of under the GPL. I'm not sure this is entirely correct. TDF allowed itself some license flexibility by asking that all contributions to LO be licensed under both the LGPL and the MPL. Originally, TDF took OOo code under the LGPL, combined it with dual licensed LGPL/MPL contributions, and licensed the combined work under the LGPL, as required by the LGPL. That situation will likely change in the near future. The original OOo code will shortly be released under the Apache License (AL). The Apache License allows anyone to take the code and use it in a proprietary work. Once the OOo code is released under the AL, I expect to see many people recompiling OOo and selling it, some with no modifications, some with their own proprietary closed-source enhancements. The Apache Foundation will also likely to be hosting an Apache OpenOffice project where people can make contributions to that codebase, with the contributions also licensed under the Apache License. TDF will be able to use those contributions in LO. Everyone else will also be able to use those contributions, in both open-source and proprietary projects. Here's the tricky part. With the release of the original OOo code under the Apache License, it may now be possible, depending on license compatibility, to take the original OOo under the AL, combine it with LO modifications under the MPL, and incorporate that code into a closed-source project. If that is possible, we may also soon see the LO code incorporated into proprietary products. I'm not an expert on the compatibility of these two licenses however, either with each other or with proprietary code. Can anyone offer an opinion or shed some light on this? Which of the following could occur, once the original OOo codebase is released under the Apache License? 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? Regardless of the above two situations, the Apache Software Foundation will not take LO modifications dual-licensed under the LGPL and MPL and include them in the Apache OpenOffice distribution. There may be no license barrier to that, but ASF has a policy barrier that prevents it: the ASF has a policy that all code distributed at the ASF must be licensed only under the Apache License. The ASF will not incorporate any code that requires a different license. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
Well im no legal expert, but from what i understand of the LGPL/MPL licenses, they still are copyleft licenses, you can merge apache code and libreoffice code, make your own version if you want, sell it etc, but if you make any derivative work, you need to make those changes available to the rest, so i dont think its possible to make a closed source office suite with libreoffice code under LGPL/MPL. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:59, Rafael Dominguez venccsra...@gmail.com wrote: Well im no legal expert, but from what i understand of the LGPL/MPL licenses, they still are copyleft licenses, you can merge apache code and libreoffice code, make your own version if you want, sell it etc, but if you make any derivative work, you need to make those changes available to the rest, so i dont think its possible to make a closed source office suite with libreoffice code under LGPL/MPL. A third party could do the following: 1. Core [from Apache], licensed under ALv2. 2. Features [from LO], licensed under MPL (you offer a choice, they pick MPL) 3. Proprietary stuff This package can then be sold. If they make modifications to the LO work, then they must release those changes. The third party is not obligated to release any changes to the Apache code, nor their proprietary code. Note that the LGPL operates similarly. A third party could take LO Core licensed under the LGPL and make releases, alongside proprietary code. They would need to release changes to the core, but it would still be possible *today*. The relink requirements under the LGPL get a bit annoying, but would still be possible. Cheers, -g ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
Hi Michael, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com wrote: On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. I guess it would be useful to create a wiki page with a FAQ about these license topics :) -- Jesús Corrius je...@softcatala.org Document Foundation founding member Mobile: +34 661 11 38 26 Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing
Le 2011-06-04 12:11, Michael Meeks a écrit : On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to create a proprietary closed-source product? If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. That would not however stop third parties from combining the Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever both licenses allowed. Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. HTH, Michael. I am not sure how much this would complicate it, but on Groklaw[1]: === Oracle is signing a SGA (Software Grant Agreement) giving the OpenOffice.org code to Apache Server Foundation (ASF) under the Apache 2.0 license. As you know, Oracle (via Sun) had ownership of the code via the CLA that they required from contributors. Oracle is also giving ASF the OpenOffice.org trademark, the logo with the birds, and the openoffice.org domain name. Some of this has happened already, some of it is in progress. Oracle appears to be retaining the copyright, not assigning it to Apache. The bottom line, then, if this is so, is that Oracle owns the code it is donating, thanks to a contribution agreement whereby contributors handed over copyright to Sun, now Oracle. And by retaining the copyright, it continues to own the code. Let this be an object lesson, that any time a project asks for all the copyrights, it can do what it pleases with your contributions. If you don't care, contribute as much as you wish. But do it knowing that it's like putting your baby up for adoption. You are not the parent any more afterward, so you don't get a say in anything. === This seems to be muddying up the waters even more. Cheers Marc [1] http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011060314010442 ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
