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

Le 26/11/11 15:50, Tom Davies a écrit :

Hi Tom,

In our case the copyright holder is TDF.  Well at the moment not TDF but the German community (or 
is it French?) that is the legally registered organisation that is looking after TDF assets until 
TDF is fully registered.

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on which half of the glass you
see as full ;-)), the copyright holder is each individual author, and
not TDF (that is precisely why there is no copyright assignment in any
part of the LibreOffice project.

If a contributor wishes to have his/her contribution accepted within the
LibreOffice project then they have to do so under the LGLP3+/MPL+ for
code, or CC-BY-SA for anything else, unless there are other specific
reasons for this not being the case (which will always raise the
question as to whether it is really accepted or not), as for example,
with some older code that has been revamped but must be kept currently
under LGPL2.

So TDF (or even the German foundation currently running things while it
is being set up) is not the owner of the documentation produced.

The Documentation Project is not a legal entity in the sense of the word
"organisation" referred to in the AL2 license - it has no legal remit of
representation for copyright assignments.

I don't have a specialism in copyright or contracts or anything and don't have any qualifications 
in law for even a single country so i am aware there are a lot of implications and things that i 
am completely unaware of.  Also i know Alex does have some expertise in exactly the right area 
although he is not officially employed as an expert and is only giving us the benefit of his 
opinion for us to weigh-up.

Indeed, I'm not (to my knowledge) employed by any entity involved in
this project (thankfully), which allows me to be have an unfettered
opinion. I have been known as an "électron libre" in the past, and for
the most part, have managed to stay that way ;-)

I have already stated on the Apache OOo list that I would not allow for
the licences of any of my previous documentation contributions to be
changed (since at one stage, some people were touting an "automatic, by
default change" - fortunately, the Apache mentors of the project are
crucially aware of doing this correctly when it comes to the legal
issues). What the final result will be remains to be seen - I fear a
severely trimmed OOo, but I am also assuming that the AOOo project will
in due course fill those gaps.

Of course, my position with regard to AL2 is my own, and each person in
this documentation project must decide in their own hearts/minds, how
they wish to act. I am not here to sway them in one way or another on
that decision. I merely wanted to point out the oversimplification that
Jean made with regard to the word "published". This oversimplification
could lead people to make a decision with regard to the licensing of
their works, without understanding all of the ramifications behind it.

Now, please excuse my pedantry, and on with the debate !!


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.