openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LibO code will be integrated to AOO?
Date Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:43:46 GMT
On 8/6/13 3:01 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:05 AM, RA Stehmann
> <anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
>> On 06.08.2013 13:41, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/13 11:40 AM, FR web forum wrote:
>>>>> Hello dev,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some enhancements exists in LibO and published under MPL v2
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> RTF import filter https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58819
[1]
>>>>> Calc polynomial curve https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35712#c10
[2]
>>>>> Do you think it is possible to integrate this into AOO next release?
>>>>
>>>> I believe we can't use it. MPL is category b and we can use external
>>>> libs for example and can link against it. But we can't use patches on
>>>> Apache licensed code that are under MPL only. We can only accept ALv2
>>>> patches on this code. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is the crux
>>>> with this license conglomerate that makes no sense at all. And I believe
>>>> many people don't get the details what it really means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is my understanding as well.  But remember, LO is not licensing
>>> these patches at all.  The developers who write the code are providing
>>> the license.  This is a subtle difference, but it means the developers
>>> are free to license the patch under ALv2 as well.  So if there is
>>> something we really would like to integrate we can approach the
>>> developer and ask if they would be willing to license the patch under
>>> ALv2.   I believe that some of the independent LO developers are also
>>> frustrated with the LO hoarding that is going on.
>>>
>> MPL has a very weak copyleft, but it has one. So you can't mix it with
>> code, which is licened unter a non-copyleft licence like the AL.
>>
>> The LibreOffice developers don't want to have a management of copyrights
>> by their foundation. So you have to talk to each developer, whether he
>> or she is willing to licence his or her code under the ALv2 too.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
> 
> I think it is more "tact" than "luck".  But we have had some success
> in making such requests in the past, generally quiet requests directly
> to the developer.  Most open source developers write code because they
> want it to be used and for people to benefit from it.  So if you give
> them an opportunity for their code to be even more widely used, this
> aligns with their goals as well.  But such requests must be made
> quietly, via private email, since there is a lot of peer pressure to
> be uncooperative with Apache.

mmh, I don't like this under the hood tactic, I would prefer a public
blog post to invite developers to provide their patches under ALv2 to
make them available to all users of any OpoenOffice derivative.

Why not asking directly? I personally don't care about people shooting
against me, especially not if their reasons are so stupid and against my
understanding of open source.

Really open minded people will see the benefit of contributing to the
core and fix problems where the code intially comes from.

Juergen

> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Regards
>> Michael
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message