On 11/10/16 12:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
So - the policy does have some basis in usefulness =) Although you are
right, we could take contributions under other licenses, it is really
non-ideal. And it is seldom an issue, having clarity is helpful.
Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.
Maybe add the following to the policy
"If people wish to use a different grant of licence they should add the
following at the end - 'I affirm this gives permission for my code to be
distributed under the project-standard MPL/LGPL licences'"
This then also gives us an out, in that if by some chance their choice
of licence is partly incompatible with ours, they have explicitly given
us permission anyways :-)
(And it also means they've given us permission to distribute under new
versions, because my wording says "the project-standard" rather than any
particular version :-)
Cheers,
Wol
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.