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

I'm not quite clear what Alex is observing about rebranding of the New documents Jean is talking 
about.  Let's break it down into parts. 

 If someone who did not hold the copyright made a derivative work of those documents to rebrand 
them for Apache OpenOffice, change screen shots, etc., they would need to honor the original 
license.  (If it is dual licensed the creator of the derivative has a choice which license(s) to 
produce the derivative under.)

If someone who held the copyright on the New documents were to make the derivative, they could 
certainly offer a different (dual) license.  By either route, even if one of the available licenses 
were an Apache ALv2 license, it still would not constitute a contribution to the Apache OpenOffice 
project.  Contribution is a separate act.

Now, to have it also be contributed to an Apache project, there would have to be a contribution 
agreement (iCLA).  Whether that is done or not is a separate decision.
An Apache project, or any other project for which the ALv2 license is compatible could also rely on 
the new document as a 3rd party work.  In the case of an Apache project, this would not happen if 
the licensor objected.   

A final example: If I wrote a new document that applied to LO and licensed it in a way that TDF 
accepts, I could also rebrand and modify it myself and offer a different license on that version.  
I am in a position to go farther and contribute the rebranded one to the Apache OpenOffice project 
too.  That involves more steps, even though I have already registered an iCLA with ASF.

[I'm not going to get into how ODF Authors and others might hold joint copyright and how that 
complicates new licensing and especially contribution to ASF.]

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Thurgood [] 
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 14:35
Subject: [libreoffice-documentation] Re: Licensing for NEW documents

Le 26/11/2011 20:15, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :

Hi Dennis,

There is absolutely no requirement to file an iCLA with the Apache Software Foundation in order 
to use the Apache License v2.0.  The iCLA is for contributors to Apache projects.  It says so 
right in the part quoted below.  Many projects not carried out as Apache projects use the 
license.  (Compare with using the GPL versus contributing to a Gnu project, the latter generally 
requiring a license to FSF.)

Thank you for specifying that. I admit that my mind was rather more 
focussing on the possibility that the "new" (and I share Jean's 
understanding of the same meaning of "new") LibreOffice documents, if 
they were rebranded as AOOo documentation under AL2 as part of the AOOo, 
would then constitute a contribution under that project and thus require 


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.