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

I see that I should have read further in this thread before making my own reply to Tom.

Alex makes an important observation.

Much of the content on the web properties are under default terms of use that 
provide broad reuse, including relicensing.  Those terms are very much comparable to what is 
granted with an incoming Apache iCLA.

In addition, there is content that has its own copyright and license notices.  The ASF is very 
attuned to treating such material both respectfully and appropriately with respect to conditions of 
the licenses that have been offered.  

Furthermore, *even* if the license is compatible for inclusion in an ALv2-licensed project, it is a 
policy of the ASF to never include in its projects material that the license-granter does not want 
a project to have, even if the license allows it otherwise. That's the policy for third-party works 
of any origin.  Such cases have arisen.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Thurgood [] 
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 07:41
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents

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.

[ ... ]

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

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.