On 07/10/2018 19:36, Tamás Zolnai wrote:
As I see LO's license is not compatible with LLVM license [1], as LLVM
license is a more permissive license which allows to make the code part
of a proprietary software for example. So I just wonder what is the best
way to integrate things to clang from
new information I agree that it would be the best to clear
> the
> > > licensing and use LLVM in every source file under compilerplugins
> > > folder. So the question is what is the best way to do that. What is the
> > > best way to ask every authors for a permission to
On Wednesday 10 of October 2018, Kaganski Mike wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 10:53 PM, Tamás Zolnai wrote:
> > With this new information I agree that it would be the best to clear the
> > licensing and use LLVM in every source file under compilerplugins
> > folder. So the question is
On 10/10/2018 10:53 PM, Tamás Zolnai wrote:
> With this new information I agree that it would be the best to clear the
> licensing and use LLVM in every source file under compilerplugins
> folder. So the question is what is the best way to do that. What is the
> best way to ask e
.
With this new information I agree that it would be the best to clear the
licensing and use LLVM in every source file under compilerplugins folder.
So the question is what is the best way to do that. What is the best way to
ask every authors for a permission to relicense the code? Do we need some
ight be to relicense the compilerplugin code with the LLVM
> license, which means additional administration of course, but would make
> reusing the code much easier. However I'm not sure this is the best way to
> solve this licensing incompatibility.
Yes, that's the right idea. In fact
. The only
question is that whether it's OK to have mixed licensed files inside LO
source code (some files with LLVM license, others with LO's license).
I expected that I need to adapt the code for clang, but I think it's still
good to make licensing compatible even if I use only small part of the code
one
IANAL, obviously, but possibly you could pick the plugins you want and ask
all the people who worked on that plugin to re-license their work (there
are not that many, and they are mostly still around)
For the record, for anything in compilerplugins/ that I have touched, I
grant you permission to
, but would make
reusing the code much easier. However I'm not sure this is the best way to
solve this licensing incompatibility.
Any idea is appreciated here or any experience with upstreaming to an open
source software with incompatible license.
Thanks,
Tamás
[1] https://opensource.org/licenses
All of my past & future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
Kowther
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
All of my past & future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Hi,
The Firebird-sdbc drivers still have BSD licence headers, which I
believe is a relic of the skeleton driver. Is it acceptable to add the
following to the top of the file as is done for MPL/Apache (APL?) and
previously MPL/LGPL mix-licenced files?
* This file is part of the LibreOffice
Forgot to include this with my patch!
All of my past and future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
Cheers,
Gregg
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 09:35 +0200, Lennard Wasserthal wrote:
So to make it clear:
I publish my patch
[PATCH] fdo#35079: EDITING: Drawing element completely in mouse
selection frame not selected.
Drawing: Fixed Custom Shape Frame-Selection Bounding box bug.
under the terms of the LGPLv3+
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 09:35 +0200, Lennard Wasserthal wrote:
I publish my patch
...
under the terms of the LGPLv3+ and MPL dual license.
An next time I will write it directly to avoid unnecessary mails.
Thanks for your contribution ! :-) it's simply brilliant to have people
working on
So to make it clear:
I publish my patch
[PATCH] fdo#35079: EDITING: Drawing element completely in mouse
selection frame not selected.
Drawing: Fixed Custom Shape Frame-Selection Bounding box bug.
under the terms of the LGPLv3+ and MPL dual license.
An next time I will write it directly to
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
--
Yours sincerely,
Tim Janik
---
http://lanedo.com/~timj/ - Managing director at Lanedo GmbH.
Free software author and contributor on various projects.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
during the last IRC meeting of the design team we decided that we'd
like to use an icon from the elementary icon theme if possible.
Should I ask the author whether he'd be ok with dual-licensing his work
under MPL and CC-BY?
Thanks
Alex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
We've just found an equivalent icon in the gnome theme. That should
make licensing easier.
Alex
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
Hi Michael,
Given that it's unlikely that we'll get an okay from the Gnome icon authors
to relicense their work under the MPL anytime soon, perhaps we could think
about licensing all LibreOffice artwork under the more art-appropriate
cc-by license from now on. This would not only decrease
All my past and future contributions to the templates that I submit to
be bundled with LibreOffice may be licensed under the CC0 license.
Alexander Wilms
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
All my past and future contributions to the LibreOffice Clean Inspiration
template may be licensed under the CC0 license. :)
--
*Mateus Machado Luna*
4º ano do Curso de Eletrônica Integrado ao Nível Médio - IFG Goiânia.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mateus-ml-wetah/
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be
licensed under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under
the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Sorry if this is noise, but Michael Meeks asked for it! Blame him! :-P
All of my past/existing contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
Hate to use future tense since that requires predictive skill which
I'm horrible at. Hope that at least sets things
To whom it concerns:
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under
the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
John LeMoyne Castle
lemoyne.cas...@gmail.com
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under the
MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under
the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
Cheers,
Suren.
--
Cheers,
~Suren.
Co-Founder, Goyaka Labs
http://suren.in
http://twitter.com/suren
skype: pingsuren
Ph: 9742077760
___
LibreOffice
I might have forgotten to mention previously with my patches:
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under
the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
Regards,
Robert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
Hi there,
as per subject, better put:
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be
licensed under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license
Thanks,
--
Kind Regards,
Giuseppe Castagno
Acca Esse http://www.acca-esse.eu
giuseppe.castagno at acca-esse.eu
Hi,
all of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be
licensed under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
Best regards,
Roland Baudin
--
X File Explorer http://roland65.free.fr/xfe
Toutes Choses http://roland65.free.fr/ttc
___
LibreOffice mailing
Hi,
all of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be
licensed under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
Best regards,
Roland Baudin
--
X File Explorer http://roland65.free.fr/xfe
Toutes Choses http://roland65.free.fr/ttc
___
LibreOffice mailing
Hi,
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under
the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license.
--
Regards,
Steven Butler
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
All of my past future contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed under
the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
As per request by Michael M:
All of my past contributions to LibreOffice may be licensed
under the MPL/LGPLv3+ dual license, including the go-oo code.
Julian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
* stuff, and link to them (statically)
or maybe include inline C++ code from libwp* headers, that is
irrelevant, isn't it, they effectively become LGPLv2+-only, too?
Linking statically might have an unintended licensing impact (IANAL),
but my hope would be that we could re-work
requires the result to be LGPL, the latter only has smaller requirements,
which can be satisfied by providing a notice and our source code.
Providing source code (or pre-built object files even), is not enough,
necessarily.
I am thinking from the perspective of somebody wanting to distribute
The older libwpd, libwpg and libwps libraries are LGPLv2+ The newer
libcdr and libvisio libraries written in the same style are
MPL/LGPL.v+2/GPLv2+ However, as they depend on libwp* stuff, and link
to them (statically) or maybe include inline C++ code from libwp*
headers, that is irrelevant, isn't
(statically)
or maybe include inline C++ code from libwp* headers, that is
irrelevant, isn't it, they effectively become LGPLv2+-only, too?
Linking statically might have an unintended licensing impact (IANAL),
but my hope would be that we could re-work the (fairly small?) parts of
libwp
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:59:58PM +, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:05 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
Sure I can: the code being *dual*-licensed means anybody legitly
getting a copy of the code can *choose* between obeying the LGPLv2.1
*OR* obeying the SISSL. I chose
Hi Lionel,
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 10:49 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
OK, then. To implement that hopefully over time, bit by bit we can
incrementally re-write it as a clean MPL/LGPLv3+ thingit, we need to
clearly establish that all future contributions to these files are
LGPLv2.1+ /
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
postgresql-sdbc
few questions/remarks (mostly on the form, rather than on substance...
I only glanced at the commits)
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
postgresql-sdbc
few questions/remarks (mostly on the form, rather than on
feel we don't gain anything of substance by keeping the SISSL, and
I'm not very strongly opposed to it. If, as a project, LibreOffice
prefers to keep SISSL licensing on that code, I'll agree to it.
Do you mean that you intend to write code in another style within the
same file? To me it seems bad
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane lio...@mamane.lu wrote:
I feel we don't gain anything of substance by keeping the SISSL, and
I'm not very strongly opposed to it. If, as a project, LibreOffice
prefers to keep SISSL licensing on that code, I'll agree to it.
hey, don't get
HI all
Please note my email change from oooc...@free.fr to
lgodard.li...@laposte.net
the most important
I license all my contributions past+future under
MPL/LGPLv3+
Laurent
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
I confirm that all my patches to LibreOffice are licensed under
LGPL3+/GPL3+/MPL.
Ivan Timofeev.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
hi all,
licensing statement, valid until further notice:
Any patches of which i'm the author that i send to the LibreOffice lists
or commit to the LibreOffice repos are available under LGPLv3+/MPLv1.1
license unless explicitly noted otherwise, or, in case of newly added
files, the license
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Peter Foley pefol...@verizon.net wrote:
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Peter Foley wrote:
All of my patches are contributed under
MPL 1.1/GLPv3+/LGPLv3+
Thanks,
Thanks you for that, and thank you for having updated
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Peter Foley wrote:
All of my patches are contributed under
MPL 1.1/GLPv3+/LGPLv3+
Thanks,
Peter
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Hi Norbert,
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 15:01 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
I've added a 'License' column in the list of developers in the wiki
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers
Thanks for doing that :-) there is a 'le...@documentfoundation.org'
alias - to which I
/dev-tools and
contrib/buildbot are under GPLv3+ unless specified otherwise in the
commit message or unless this is a new file, in which case the
licensing information inside the new file, if any, govern.
Any patches I submit to the libreoffice-dev mailing list or that I
commit directly
Hello there,
Yeah, I'd like add to what Thorsten said. My work(Including GSOC works
and apart from that) can be submitted to LGPLv3+/MPL dual license and
its future versions also.
Regards
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Thorsten Behrens
t...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Anurag Jain wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'd like to say that all my contribution towards Libre office suite
codebase can be licensed under LGPSv3/MPL dual license. My work will
includes all the patches which I've submitted under GSOC program and
apart from that , and LGPLv3/MPL can be applied to all of them.
Thanks
- 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
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
- 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
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
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
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,
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
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
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)
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
66 matches
Mail list logo
