On 05/01/12 23:58, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.org wrote:
I think you are just trying to find some silly excuse to complain
about code that *you* clearly didn't write or own. All the code
either from version control or bugzilla was provided
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
We accept relatively small contributions without an ICLA. But all
contributions get reviewed, and all releases go through scans (what we
call RAT == Release Audit Tool) and are voted on in a transparent,
open process.
RAT
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
We accept relatively small contributions without an ICLA. But all
contributions get reviewed, and all releases go through scans (what we
call RAT
On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
...
For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for
smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any
committer can veto a patch. So incoming patches without an ICLA need
to meet a high bar to get into the code. My
Michael, Michael ...
On 05/01/12 11:38, Michael Meeks wrote:
Hi Rob,
So what exactly LO has is license soup as far as I am concerned.
The situation is reasonably simple currently; yet it is of course made
un-necessarily difficult by IBM Oracle's insistence on choosing yet
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
...
For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for
smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any
committer can veto a patch. So incoming
On 05/01/12 21:42, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
...
For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order. Ditto for
smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. Remember, any
committer can
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
I think you are just trying to find some silly excuse to complain
about code that *you* clearly didn't write or own. All the code
either from version control or bugzilla was provided by Oracle
That is not what was said in
Hi
I am not a lawer but i did a work of licenses some time ago[1], and i
read many of main licenses, and a thing that i listened in all was
that only the license holder can changes his work. So, my ask is:
Oracle gave permission to TDF to add GPL and MPL for LibO?
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I am not a lawer but i did a work of licenses some time ago[1], and i
read many of main licenses, and a thing that i listened in all was
that only the license holder can changes his work. So, my ask is:
Oracle gave
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I am not a lawer but i did a work of licenses some time ago[1], and i
read many of main licenses, and a thing that i listened in all was
that only the license
]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 08:12
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I am not a lawer but i did a work of licenses some time ago[1], and i
read many of main licenses
Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote:
To be precise, the practice is for new contributions to be dual licensed as
LGPL and MPL by the contributor. It remains the case that the main code body
is under
Hi
2012/4/29 Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org:
I am not certain what this has to do with the original question.
@Dennis
Right! My question was more about one (of many) advantage (or
fallacies) of LibO use, where they said that with their code you have
more freedom, where in true,
is an independent
consideration.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Claudio Filho [mailto:filh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 14:31
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Hi
2012/4/29 Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org:
I
Hi Claudio;
First of all the mandatory disclaimer that I am not a
lawyer either :-).
...
--- Dom 29/4/12, Claudio Filho filh...@gmail.com ha scritto:
...
Hi
I am not a lawer but i did a work of licenses some time
ago[1], and i read many of main licenses, and a thing
that i listened in
16 matches
Mail list logo
