On 18/02/11 16:55, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 17:46 +0100, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
Having said this, if someone has submitted lots of patches under
explicit LGPLv3+/MPL remark, and submitted another patch without
mentioning of the license, we may just assume that it is under the same
license as with his previous patches. But that's sort of a gray area.
I've seen people just make statements like
"'this' patch and subsequent patches can be considered to be LGPLv3+/MPL
unless stated otherwise"
Noel
Context
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.