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


On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu> wrote:

I feel we don't gain anything of substance by keeping the SISSL, and
I'm not very strongly opposed to it. If, as a project, LibreOffice
prefers to keep SISSL licensing on that code, I'll agree to it.


hey, don't get me wrong... I _like_ GPL. If it was up to me I would
not even bother with MPL at all...

I was just concerned with the compatibility of LGPLv2 with LGPLv3+MPL.
and since there is some intent to try to get
to some kind of uniform LGPLv3/MPL compatibility... a LGPLv2 only
piece did not sound like progress toward that goal.

Michael apparently seems ok with dropping SISSL, and he is the biggest
proponent of MPL... so if that is good for him
and it is the fact that LGPLv2 is not at issue here (wrt with the
integation in the 'whole)
I don't care that much (actually that make the head smaller, which is
a plus :-) )


My .emacs applies to *all* C(++) code I open, not only to LO, so
that's IMHO not the right approach.

for example, http://www.emacswiki.org/ProjectSettings

If you put all that in the variable-line, the only recourse I have to
override is to patch emacs to make it ignore it :-(


Norbert

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.