On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just saying, there's more than one way to skin the cat (as the old saying goes),
and there are multiple reason for choosing difference licensing methods,
many of which are very valid reasons - not all of which lead to GPL/LGPL.
To be clear I'm not saying that IBM reason for acting the way they are
is not 'valid'.
I'm saying that this is not 'valid' for me and _my_ reasons to
participate, and, I suppose/hope(*), for most people that chose to
participate in LibreOffice.
Norbert
(*) Actually it is a bit more than wishful thinking. There has been
significant evidences of numerous people indicating this (LGPL/no CLA)
was indeed a motivating factor in their decision to join LibreOffice.
and clearly that was also in the mind of the core group that started it too.
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.