Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2019 Archives by date, by thread · List index


On 11/07/19 07:32, Uwe Brauer wrote:

On 10/07/19 17:54, Andrew Pitonyak wrote:

I would also appreciate having a copy of them to try. Unfortunately, I
am likely to be highly critical, but then, I hope those comments will be
helpful.

Please take in mind, that Andrew is not the original author. I find it
very generous of him to provide his help to make these macros work. My
hope is, as I said elsewhere, that others developer get and idea of the
feature and might generalize it to not read only.

Please do email them directly ...

No your changes are NOT GPL if you don't want them to be. Please mark
your changes as being under the LO MPL licence. Okay, the resultant file
can only be *distributed* under the GPL, but if somebody then rewrites
the GPL stuff out, the file will change to LO licence.

I am not sure I understand (I am no lawyer, but I have contributed over
the years to GPL software).
I thought GPL is a rather capitalistic license, you obtain something
(code) you have to pay for it (by your code).

So if you modify a existing program under GPL (and I think modify means
here more than 5 lines of code, either add functionality or modify it),
you must release the code under the same license. You are not allowed to
release them under stay CC, or MIT or whatsoever. So when you say your
code, do you mean these 5 lines and whether you can release these 5
lines under the license of your choice. Is that what you mean?

Note that this is not seen as an appropriate forum for discussing legal
issues ...

But yes. YOUR code you can place under any licence you like. There is no
problem adding GPL code to a BSD original document so why should there
be a problem adding BSD code to a GPL original document.

The problem comes when your licence of choice clashes with the licence
on the original document. In my example above, complying with the GPL
means you are also complying with BSD, therefore there is no problem
distributing the document under the GPL. But downstream can separate the
two parts and distribute the BSD bit under BSD.

Think blood groups - BSD is like group O, a universal donor. GPL is like
AB, a universal acceptor.

And mixing eg MPL1 and GPL is like mixing A and B - in order to comply
with one, you need to break the other, therefore the result is toxic.

Note that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no licence that
actually allows you to *change* the licence on any body else's code.

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.