Re: [Libreoffice] PostgreSQL-SDBC in LO: licensing

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:22:33AM -0600, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu> wrote:
>
> > > postgresql-sdbc
>
> > few questions/remarks (mostly on the form, rather than on substance...
> > I only glanced at the commits)
>
> > 5a2b8cba519bb9d34d3a28a51adcda334147096f:
> > Humm, not sure you can do that,
>
> Sure I can: the code being *dual*-licensed means anybody legitly
> getting a copy of the code can *choose* between obeying the LGPLv2.1
> *OR* obeying the SISSL. I chose LGPLv2.1.

And that is a problem, because that is not compatible with the project license.

> > but even if you could, removing SISSL is not a good idea since that
> > is what allow that code to be merged in libreoffice (which is
> > MPL/LGPLv3+)
>
> I understand you are saying that the SISSL allows us to relicense the
> code under MPL/LGPLv3+; I'm not sure I agree. Could you please explain
> why you think that is?
>
> In particular, by (re)distributing the SISSL-covered code under
> MPL/LGPLv3+, we allow downstream users to not obey the "standards
> body" clause of the SISSL. And we are not allowed to allow others to
> not obey that clause of the SISSL.

The least of 2 'evils': we are LGPLv3+ + MPL that can't work at all with LGPLv2
OTOH SISSL explicitly permit integration under a bigger work with the
license of the bigger work, provided that SSIL is respected for the
piece
inserted. The 'obey standard' clause is weird, but irrelevant here
because the only thing it does is force copyleft, which we already
are.


> Do you mean that you intend to write code in another style within the
> same file? To me it seems bad practise to mix *different* styles
> within the same file.
>
> If not, well, the default emacs style (modified by tab-width=4,
> indent-tabs-mode:nil and c-basic-offset: 4) does *not* match the style
> of the existing code in that file, so it makes it harder than it has
> to be to make modifications in that file: indentation is not a simple
> matter of pressing the tab key, one has to do it manually for *every*
> {} block. Why would we want to inconvenience contributors so?
>
> The default emacs style would lead to:

The 'factory' default yes, but the 'the default'. my .emacs is set the
way I like it, and it behave the way I am accustomed to (I used a
customized ellemtel for instance)

The 'use the local style' recommendation is my responsibility to
enforce, selectively I might add.

If you want to set-up your emacs to use the built-in bsd style, please
by all means to so, but in your own .emacs

Norbert