Hello again Jan!
I understand there should be no issue, since all the requirements
mentioned were followed, except to have the written permission forwarded
to the project.
I already have the waiver in Portuguese and just need to know to whom
should I address it.
It is important that patches submitted are your own work and thus free
of other license bindings.
(...)
The license must be known and accepted.
Those thesauri are ‘original’ in the sense that they were converted,
merged, and rebuilt ‘from scratch’. Unlike the first patch, there is
only a small minority of lines that look like any of the source files. I
credit the other authors/projects and included the licences in the
Leiame file (Readme) inside the articles, for the word relations these
projects provide.
> - you cannot change the license, without the written permission from
the author (and we have a copy).
Can I make LO licence statement now, or, once I make the statement I am
interfering with the base licences, and as such, I must wait until PAPEL
and Onto.pt author also grants a specific licensing change permission
for this project?
Sorry for these doubts, but, at least for me, these matters are very
confusing and overwhelming.
Since this discussion pertains him, I copy in Hugo G. Oliveira,
responsible for both projects, as well.
Best regards,
Tiago Santos
Às 09:43 de 26-08-2016, jan iversen escreveu:
Hi
For some reason, your email was duplicated, but let me try to answer
your questions.
First of all let me say it is nice to see someone take the license
seriously, a lot of people says "Lets do it without license" and
believes that makes their software open and free.
Recently, I have been pointed to the Get Involved page, and I would
like to subscribe to the license terms posted there, though I would
like to ask advice about my previous submissions before proceeding.
I am the culpit, who commented on your bugzilla patches.
The first patch is a corrected merge of European Portuguese and
Brazilian LibreOffice auto-correction files, explained and submitted
on bug 97439.
I do not have many doubts about this patch since it was based on two
files already present in LibreOffice, and as such, they should also
be licensed under MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
You submitted it as an attachment to bugzilla, and these follow the
footer note on
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/ "Source code form contributions
such as patches are considered to be modifications under the Mozilla
Public License v2.0 <http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/>."
Furthermore you did not directly merge them into the master branch, I
did that in your name, acting as a "guarantee" for the license.
We do accept smaller patches without a license statement, but as soon
as you submit something bigger or more complicated, the license
statement is demanded, to avoid any doubt.
The main doubts come from the second patch and third patches, posted
on bug 101616. They are vastly increased thesaurus for European
Portuguese language (though the third patch may be suitable for
Brazilian Portuguese after review).
These last two patches were posted as a package with a copy of the
base licenses since they are based in the already existing thesaurus
from LibreOffice (MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license) and two other European
Portuguese academic ontologies with free distribution licenses. I
requested email approval from of the author, in addition to the
public claim of free use from project PAPEL, and Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 Unported license from project Onto.pt
<http://onto.pt>. Though they should be compatible with MPLv2/LGPLv3+
dual license, I am not absolutely sure they are.
These patches are still pending to be merged on master.
It is important that patches submitted are your own work and thus free
of other license bindings.
If submitting work of others, there are a couple of extra rules to follow:
- The work must be credited to the original author
- you cannot change the license, without the written permission from
the author (and we have a copy).
- The license must be known and accepted.
We do use the CCA license for a lot of our work, and that is normally ok.
A good advice is to submit original work as a separate patch, followed
by your work, so that we have the right crediting in our git logs.
Can someone with more knowledgeable of this licensing terms advise me
on this matter, so I can proceed with the subscription to the
licence, and these former patches can be made useful to others.
I hope to have answered your good questions and look forward to see
your license statement, as well as more patches :-)
Have a good weekend.
rgds
jan I.
PS - Apologies for the former unrevised email. This email
punctuation, spelling and grammar revision from the former one.
No problem.
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.