Triple licensing?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
Next » 12
Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Triple licensing?

Hi all;

I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That
way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here
while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump,
many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them.

I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community.

What do you think?

-Keith

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all;
>
> I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
> changes.


How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there
is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would
effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing
something here?

LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That

> way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here
> while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump,
> many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them.
>
> I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -Keith
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>



--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all;
> >
> > I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
> > changes.
>
>
> How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means
> there
> is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would
> effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm
> missing
> something here?
>
> It is true that the only license that matters is the least restrictive one,
but people usually add licenses and so I was following that method. If you
decide to throw the others away as pointless if Apache is chosen for a
change, that would be an optimization.

-Keith

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Christoph Jopp Christoph Jopp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
Am 14.06.2011 09:49, schrieb Ian Lynch:

> On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all;
>>
>> I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
>> changes.
>
>
> How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means there
> is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would
> effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm missing
> something here?

No, it just would mean that some user of the code decides under what
license he takes it. Same is true now for the dual-licensed parts (LGPL/MPL)

>
> LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That
>> way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here
>> while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump,
>> many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them.
>>
>> I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -Keith
>>
>> --
>> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
>> deleted
>>
>
>
>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Christoph Jopp Christoph Jopp
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Keith Curtis
Am 14.06.2011 11:34, schrieb Keith Curtis:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 14 June 2011 06:55, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all;
>>>
>>> I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
>>> changes.
>>
>>
>> How does that work? Surely if they licensed their work Apache it means
>> there
>> is no need for the other licenses because the Apache license would
>> effectively over-ride the conditions of the other license. Maybe I'm
>> missing
>> something here?
>>
> It is true that the only license that matters is the least restrictive one,
Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license
because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible
to the least restrictive license you offer.
> but people usually add licenses and so I was following that method. If you
> decide to throw the others away as pointless if Apache is chosen for a
> change, that would be an optimization.
>
> -Keith
>


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Christoph Jopp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license
> because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible
> to the least restrictive license you offer.
>
> Okay, good point.

Anyway, I'm just thinking of a way for Apache people to contribute to now.
It seems there is excitement over there, but they don't have something that
builds, etc. It seems like perhaps half will be blocked for some time.

You could let some people work here and create a tree with a queue of
changes made by Apache contributors that Apache could adopt when they are
ready. That could be a useful gift and a way for everyone to work now.

-Keith

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Keith Curtis

On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote:

> Hi all;
>
> I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
> changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That
> way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here
> while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump,
> many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them.
>
> I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community.
>
> What do you think?

As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable.

S.



--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Keith Curtis
On 14 June 2011 11:38, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Christoph Jopp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license
> > because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible
> > to the least restrictive license you offer.
> >
> > Okay, good point.
>
> Anyway, I'm just thinking of a way for Apache people to contribute to now.
> It seems there is excitement over there, but they don't have something that
> builds, etc. It seems like perhaps half will be blocked for some time.
>
> You could let some people work here and create a tree with a queue of
> changes made by Apache contributors that Apache could adopt when they are
> ready. That could be a useful gift and a way for everyone to work now.
>

I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache
start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and
writing it in Javascript. Seems to me that without a web based version both
LibreO and OOo could become irrelevant anyway. Since LibO is already solidly
in the desktop groove it makes much more efficient use of resources for
Apache OOo to go to the web and also fits the Apache culture better. Files
would be interchangeable between desktop and web, 100% through odf. OK, it's
a big ask but this is probably the only opportunity that will arise for such
a big shift in strategy.  This strategy would mean anyone needing OOo now
has LibO for continuity while the web version is being created so if it
takes a couple of years it is not a disaster. Better to spend time on long
term sustainability than patching up and sorting out code that really
duplicates what is already available at LibO. Ok IBM symphony might be an
issue in that scenario but the project is not there simply to support that
product and I see wider and higher priorities.
--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

todd rme todd rme
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 14 June 2011 11:38, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Christoph Jopp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Not automatically. Someone might want the more restrictive license
>> > because he wants to mix it with other code with a license incompatible
>> > to the least restrictive license you offer.
>> >
>> > Okay, good point.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm just thinking of a way for Apache people to contribute to now.
>> It seems there is excitement over there, but they don't have something that
>> builds, etc. It seems like perhaps half will be blocked for some time.
>>
>> You could let some people work here and create a tree with a queue of
>> changes made by Apache contributors that Apache could adopt when they are
>> ready. That could be a useful gift and a way for everyone to work now.
>>
>
> I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache
> start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and
> writing it in Javascript.

It's already been done:

http://www.webodf.org/

-Todd

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Ian Lynch
Hi,

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 19:04, Ian Lynch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache
> start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and
> writing it in Javascript. Seems to me that without a web based version both
> LibreO and OOo could become irrelevant anyway. Since LibO is already solidly
> in the desktop groove it makes much more efficient use of resources for
> Apache OOo to go to the web and also fits the Apache culture better. Files
> would be interchangeable between desktop and web, 100% through odf. OK, it's
> a big ask but this is probably the only opportunity that will arise for such
> a big shift in strategy.  This strategy would mean anyone needing OOo now
> has LibO for continuity while the web version is being created so if it
> takes a couple of years it is not a disaster. Better to spend time on long
> term sustainability than patching up and sorting out code that really
> duplicates what is already available at LibO. Ok IBM symphony might be an
> issue in that scenario but the project is not there simply to support that
> product and I see wider and higher priorities.

If I'm not mistaken, the SC sees LibreOffice as remaining a firmly
desktop-based suite, although they are thinking about a complementary
Web-based component of some kind. I must admit that I'd like the
software to remain on my computer without me hanging from strings
rooted somewhere on the Web or in a cloud (not even a local one).

--
David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

davidnelson davidnelson
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by todd rme
Hi,

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 20:49, todd rme <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at Apache
>> start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch and
>> writing it in Javascript.
>
> It's already been done:
>
> http://www.webodf.org/

Well that's only an ODF compatibility library, not an entire office
suite package...

--
David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Ian Lynch Ian Lynch
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

On 14 June 2011 14:37, David Nelson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 20:49, todd rme <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> I'd like to see the desktop effort here at LibO and the developers at
> Apache
> >> start on a new web based OOo even if that meant starting from scratch
> and
> >> writing it in Javascript.
> >
> > It's already been done:
> >
> > http://www.webodf.org/
>
> Well that's only an ODF compatibility library, not an entire office
> suite package...
>

It could be a good start which means no need to start from absolute scratch,
but its not yet the sort of tool set that GoogleDocs currently has let alone
OOo. If the development resource at OOo supported this development we'd get
there a lot quicker.

Doesn't need to detract at all from LibO either, it can stay firmly on the
desktop. Having complementary desktop and web office suites is better than
duplicating effort and is a good reason to have two cooperative but separate
projects.

>
> --
> David Nelson
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>


--
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote:
>
>> Hi all;
>>
>> I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
>> changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That
>> way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here
>> while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump,
>> many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them.
>>
>> I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable.

Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept
commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2?

Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright
assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the
patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL
combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2
license(*).

Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's
original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since
it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it,
then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF
repository arises.

Cheers,
-g

(*) strictly speaking, you do not offer code to the ASF under any
specific license. your ICLA grants the ASF a right to release your
code under a license of its choosing.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?


On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:16, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all;
>>>
>>> I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
>>> changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change. That
>>> way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here
>>> while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump,
>>> many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them.
>>>
>>> I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable.
>
> Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept
> commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2?

I'm pretty sure they would, yes, since it in no way inhibits outbound licensing under LGPLv3, but of course it's for others here to agree :-)

>
> Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright
> assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the
> patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL
> combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2
> license(*).

The question would then appear to be whether Apache would accept contributions under just the Apache License, without an ICLA (since there are quite a few people here who object to any form of CLA).

>
> Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's
> original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since
> it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it,
> then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF
> repository arises.

Presumably anyone can do that porting, not just the original contributor?

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Alexandro Colorado Alexandro Colorado
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote:
>
> > Hi all;
> >
> > I had an idea that you could offer to let people triple-license their
> > changes. LibreOffice can become an upstream of Apache with this change.
> That
> > way people not interested in setting up build servers, etc. can work here
> > while Apache setup the infrastructure. Given the state of the code dump,
> > many people will not be able to contribute today, and this lets them.
> >
> > I think this would be a nice invitation to the Apache community.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> As far as I am aware there's no problem with making contributions to
> LibreOffice using any open source license that's compatible with both MPL
> and LGPLv3. Since that includes the Apache License, I would expect
> contributions licensed just under that license to be perfectly acceptable.
>

Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the
same patch to LibO?
How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code
around, but what about generating code for both?


>
> S.
>
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
> deleted
>
>


--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps

On Jun 14, 2011, at 11:23 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Right, Simon. ... but (you saw that coming) would TDF/LO accept
>> commits into the repository that were only licensed ALv2?
>
> I'm pretty sure they would, yes, since it in no way inhibits outbound licensing under LGPLv3, but of course it's for others here to agree :-)
>

That is great news! Reading over the archives, I was surprised
how some people who wished to contribute to both LOo and OOo
were turned away (with a "we don't want your kind here"),
and so seeing how LOo would now be open to itself accepting
patches and code under AL is a welcome step forward!


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Alexandro Colorado

On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>>
>
> Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the
> same patch to LibO?
> How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code
> around, but what about generating code for both?
>

As far as I can tell, you could simply make your contribution in both places.

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

jonathon-6 jonathon-6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Alexandro Colorado
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 14/06/2011 15:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote:

> How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code around, but what about generating code for both?

As a practical matter, the code would have to modified to work as
expected with at least one, if not both projects.

How much modification would be required, depends upon what the code
does, and how deeply into other code it interacts.

By way of example.

You could dump the entire SQLite code into LibO, or Apache_OOo, with no
modifications, if nothing called that code.  However, for end users,
that SQLite code would be useless, because there would be no way for
them to create, edit, or retrieve data from an SQLite database.

If code for the UI is included, so that end users can create, edit, or
modify SQLite databases, then the code (SQLite + UI code dump) may have
to be massaged to fit project guidelines, fix bugs, or other things.

jonathon
- --
If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.

If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
requesting.

                              DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJN95bgAAoJEERA7YuLpVrV/dsIAJs6sdm+5OdWVwZP91obP16Z
HHSeThNjRrIMayGPQCA04HFlG2GwuSXl5MDISAa4zC8gwmJaACt0qDHCVNWNRZ5x
yIxJiaz+ODqdLHUuw3aOpaTjMumgd86LoJRkMGx/mqZUTgd4XqR+287M02EoozPl
C9WhU8k43UI5ppOcHDA46pcJTq9L6IGWkOqN+k8yORlyCN+Q9IMLCDA2DWbzzmKb
D4ptT39IUWS0OySkeU2Y2HmBfqK4eRl1hX2seXwn6azF7PqPtbn7Ot9o3wtbu11n
tPlTYjvSgb/no2kSZS3WaGcT5hwWsfjxroDT56QB/qEaPcW2Og/ZSvMoAzRwkYo=
=Ietw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:39, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:31, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Here is a thougt, what if i just create a patch for Apache and submit the
>> same patch to LibO?
>> How exactly would that work. So far the discussion was about moving code
>> around, but what about generating code for both?
>>
>
> As far as I can tell, you could simply make your contribution in both places.

Yup.

If Keith has an ICLA on file, then he could get voted in as a
committer and apply the patch. If not a committer, then sending the
patch to the list is a Contribution, allowing the ASF to apply the
patch and (re)license under the ALv2 when it makes a release.

Cheers,
-g

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Triple licensing?

In reply to this post by Simon Phipps
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:23, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 14 Jun 2011, at 16:16, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:00, Simon Phipps <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14 Jun 2011, at 06:55, Keith Curtis wrote:
>...
>> Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright
>> assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Thus, the
>> patch can be offered to the TDF under its suggested LGPLv3/MPL
>> combination, and offered separately to the ASF under an ALv2
>> license(*).
>
> The question would then appear to be whether Apache would accept contributions under just the Apache License, without an ICLA (since there are quite a few people here who object to any form of CLA).

If you send a patch to one of our mailing lists, then you're intending
for us to use it. It is thus a Contribution, and we can (re)license it
under ALv2 when it is released.

In our JIRA instance, we have a checkbox that clearly states the Contribution.

For a larger body of work, these kinds of (non-CLA) contributions
become less clear. And without clear provenance, then Apache may not
be able to take it.[1]

I'm not sure why people have an aversion to an ICLA. Simon: you wrote
an article on lwn.net about how they are "bad", but you were talking
about *copyright assignment*. And yeah: that is Bad with a capital B.
But Apache's ICLA does not include an assignment. It does not *remove*
any rights from the development, so I do not understand why somebody
would be reticent to sign one.

>> Of course, there is no repository right now (speaking to Keith's
>> original point), so offering a patch under ALv2 would be easiest since
>> it could be ported to the ASF by anybody. If TDF doesn't accept it,
>> then the original author would have to do that porting once the ASF
>> repository arises.
>
> Presumably anyone can do that porting, not just the original contributor?

If the TDF does not accept ALv2, then the code arrives under the
dual-license. Only the author can take his contribution and offer it
to the ASF under the cover of his ICLA.

If the TDF allows ALv2, then the code can be submitted to the ASF.
However, even that submission is not quite the same as contributions
under an ICLA, as I've explained elsewhere in this message. In short,
the preference to get all code submissions under the cover of an ICLA.
Code under explicit licenses needs to be treated as "upstream" and
handled accordingly to the applied license.

Fun stuff, huh?

Cheers,
-g

[1] the person offering the feature could post a "release" of the code
under a specific license. if it is compatible, then Apache can consume
the code under that license. this is just like consuming third-party
libraries. I imagine a code might be able to say, very clearly, in
their email "these 5000 lines are offered to the ASF under the ALv2
license". that doesn't give the ASF the same kinds of rights as an
ICLA, however. we'd have to isolate those 5000 lines into
(effectively) a vendor branch of an unspecified source code release.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Next » 12