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

On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen <bjoern.michaelsen@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
> > (alv2-mpl-lgplv3), they would be refused. Is that correct?
>
> That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a matter of
> community, not just of license. Such combinations of licenses do not lead to a
> contribution being automatically accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at
> TDF, we look at each case on its merits.

That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question
is whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless*
of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. For example,
if a patch was single-licensed under the GPL, AOO would reject it,
because it is incompatible with the conditions on which AOO itself
is licensed as well as because the social contract which AOO tries
to create. A patch under alv2-mpl-lgplv3 would be fine, license-wise,
and would not be rejected out-of-hand. At that point, the patch would
either be accepted or rejected based on the technical merits, and
not on any "social" aspects.

> The anonymous contacts you claim to represent should step forward and work on
> the dev list where I am sure their genuine needs will be accommodated flexibly.

"claim to represent"... Ah, good strategy. Instead of addressing
the question, simply pretend that the question itself is
"invalid" or that the person who is asking it has ulterior
motives.

Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity
of the contacts, but that should not matter. The question
is valid and should be easy enough to answer: would LO/TDF
treat a patch/contribution under alv2-mpl-lgplv2 *ANY* different
than a patch under "just" mpl-lgplv3.

It's a simple question. The very fact that I've been
unable to get a simple answer should be proof-positive
that others that I "claim to represent" also have been
unable to get a clear, official answer as well.
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@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