Hi Florian, all,
CC'ing the design list, because it's mainly their content we talk here (at the moment)...
Bernhard Dippold wrote on 2010-12-14 21.30:
As we work on content to be included in the product in our wiki, I've
been thinking about adding a second license to the wiki upload: LGPL.
So the contributor can choose between:
- CC & LGPL double license (I'd prefer as default)
What do you think?
Would this be a question for the SC?
I'm no license expert -- why do you want to do so, what would be the
At the moment we work on the LibO mimetype icons and upload the source files to the wiki.
If they would be licensed right from the beginning under LGPL, the final icons could easily be
integrated in the product without asking every contributor for licensing their work under LGPL.
This might be true for other graphics too when we start working on the "Community Branding".
I could imagine other parts of the package that might be handled in a similar way (menu icons,
templates, gallery items ...).
I'm not a license expert either, but nobody told me about negative aspects of such a double license
strategy by now, so I just wanted to post my ideas...
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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