Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:53 PM, David Nelson <> wrote:
Hi, :-)

When it's not possible to establish definite licensing for a template,
does that perhaps suggest that either there was never any formal
licensing or that we couldn't really be blamed much for further
distributing it?

Also, many of the templates we might accumulate would probably undergo
some additional development/maintenance work, and might even end up a
bit unrecognizable...

I do understand your praiseworthy concerns, Marc, but I'm wondering if
you're not being a *little* over-cautious?

What do others think?

As an open source community I think it is vitally important that we
fully respect intellectual property rights of each individual who
contributed these templates. The fact that they are not flagged as
open source or copyright does not make them free for all.

If we cannot establish their licence and attribution we should not be
using or distributing them under a potentially new licence without the
express permission of the contributor.

You and I would expect the same treatment for our contributions.

Michael Wheatland

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.