On 04.06.2011 6:06, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Among
other requirements, the podling project has to review the copyright history
of all code to ensure it has a clean "title" and is or can be licensed under
the Apache License.
A lurker is speaking here.
AFAIU, one of the reasons why Go-Openoffice split from OOo, and why it
merged back with LO later was copyright policy that forced all
developers to give up copyright to Sun and let Sun release proprietary
versions of OOo. AFAICS, LO does not have that requirement (plain LGPL,
no strings attached), which is why, i presume, other OOo forks merged
with it.
Would developers of these forks split away from LO again now? Or will LO
remain independent, committing only *parts* of its new code (from
authors that are not opposed to Apache License) to ASF, while also
keeping its own LGPL-only changes and their developers as well? I know
that this can be technically done, and is legally sound, but the cost of
juggling with a large number of patches (that might become incompatible
with OOo as its development goes forward) might be too great.
H-m-m-m...OTOH, joining ASF and contributing to OOo there might entitle
TDF members to preserve OOo-LO compatibility. That is, make sure that
OOo doesn't get code that breaks LO's own LGPL-only patches simply out
of spite. On the third hand, this might not work very well for some
things, as OOo might get its own implementations of LO's LGPL-only
features, and these will be, obviously, mutually exclusive.
I am not a OOo/LO developer, and i haven't been lurking long, but i
would really like to see LO thriving, and i am very concerned.
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.