i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
zahra a zahra a
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

hello every one.
i appreciate if someone explane for me license agreement and terms of
use for libreoffice and its difference with openoffice!
i remember that i wanted to study it, but it was extremely long
specially with inclusion of thirdparthy terms and use like java, some
font manufacturers extensions and plugins makers etc.
and for this reason i could not understand the difference between
license and terms of use for the two project!
could you please explane for me some of the main rools and regulations
that we should do and maintain and also differences in license between
two programs?
thanks extremely for your help, i pray for you and request divine
infinite mercy for you.

--
we have not sent you but as a mercy to the creation.
holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
in the very authentic narration is:
imam hosein is the beacon of light and the ark of salvation.
best website for studying islamic book in different languages
al-islam.org

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
TomD TomD
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

Hi :)
Just my opinion and i might be wrong in some aspects but hopefully i've got
enough correct to give you a rough idea. :)

The OpenOffice license has changed quite a bit over the years.  LibreOffice
is closer to the original - and is aiming to be something like the Creative
Commons ones, ie free to use, free to modify and free for you to share your
modified version or/and to share the unmodified version.

You can sell the unmodified or modified versions for whatever you like as
long as it's on Cd/Dvd, or Usb or that you are providing some way for
people to install it that is different from them just downloading it from
the LibreOffice website.  You would not be charging for the software itself
so you would be charging for providing the means/method for the people to
install the software.  However you need to make it clear to them where they
can get the source code for free and be willing to give them the source
code via the same method used to give them the software.

There are sometimes disagreements about whether it is enough to just give
them a link to the LibreOffice website or whether you should provide the
source code by the same means as the rest of the software and whether you
should give them the source code at the same time as the rest of the
software.  If, for example, you are selling Cd's of LibreOffice then it
might be easiest to just include the source code on the same Cd to prevent
such 'discussions'.  If anyone asks you to provide the source code then you
have to give them at least the link to the LibreOffice website so they can
get it for free (excluding transmissions and internet charges etc).

You can charge for support, consultation, advice and other services.

If you make any money from LibreOffice then it's polite (and strategically
wise) to donate to The Document Foundation or/and a group working on
LibreOffice such as a localisation/translation group or local users-group.

There are arguments/discussions about what "make money" means.  Often the
people who do charge argue that a percentage of ALL money should go to TDF
- people who don't charge point out that it should be only an amount of the
profits (ie only after all the costs and expenses and after the costs of
expanding the business a bit have been recouped by whoever was doing the
charging).


The main aim is to get LibreOffice distributed as widely as reasonably
possible without creating problems for the people doing the distributing.
OpenOffice has moved slightly away from that idea and is a little more keen
on getting some sort of recognition for those involved in doing the
programming.

3rd party stuff; such as Java, accessibility programs (and anything else
that is not directly part of LibreOffice itself) each have their own
"Ts&Cs" (= terms and conditions) of what they want to let you do and what
they want to prevent.

With something like Java there is likely to be an Open Source
alternative/version that does have a very similar license to LibreOffice.


I have tried to describe the GPL license because that is used quite widely
in OpenSource projects.  The Mozilla license and LGPL used by LibreOffice
and a few others aims to be similar but have slight nuances or try to make
the essential freedoms clearer or more binding under law but they all aim
to be much the same as the GPL.

The Apache Foundation's licence, used by OpenOffice nowadays, tends to be
more like the BSD licenses and tends to try to give more credit to the
programmers and restrict usage a little bit more.  Confusingly some people
refer to these as being more 'permissive', i think because it gives big
businesses more control.

Regards from
Tom :)



On 15 April 2017 at 10:18, nasrin khaksar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> tudy it, but it was extremely long
> specially with inclusion of thirdparthy
>

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
zahra a zahra a
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

hi tom.
thanks so much for your great informations.
i learned many useful things from it and i appreciate you and pray for you.
i heard sometimes that openoffice license is license of oracle company.
is it true?

i love gpl mpl and lgpl license best and they are very close to my
ideas and beliefs.
in this case, libreoffice is the best option for me forever.
am i right?

On 4/15/17, Tom Davies <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi :)
> Just my opinion and i might be wrong in some aspects but hopefully i've got
> enough correct to give you a rough idea. :)
>
> The OpenOffice license has changed quite a bit over the years.  LibreOffice
> is closer to the original - and is aiming to be something like the Creative
> Commons ones, ie free to use, free to modify and free for you to share your
> modified version or/and to share the unmodified version.
>
> You can sell the unmodified or modified versions for whatever you like as
> long as it's on Cd/Dvd, or Usb or that you are providing some way for
> people to install it that is different from them just downloading it from
> the LibreOffice website.  You would not be charging for the software itself
> so you would be charging for providing the means/method for the people to
> install the software.  However you need to make it clear to them where they
> can get the source code for free and be willing to give them the source
> code via the same method used to give them the software.
>
> There are sometimes disagreements about whether it is enough to just give
> them a link to the LibreOffice website or whether you should provide the
> source code by the same means as the rest of the software and whether you
> should give them the source code at the same time as the rest of the
> software.  If, for example, you are selling Cd's of LibreOffice then it
> might be easiest to just include the source code on the same Cd to prevent
> such 'discussions'.  If anyone asks you to provide the source code then you
> have to give them at least the link to the LibreOffice website so they can
> get it for free (excluding transmissions and internet charges etc).
>
> You can charge for support, consultation, advice and other services.
>
> If you make any money from LibreOffice then it's polite (and strategically
> wise) to donate to The Document Foundation or/and a group working on
> LibreOffice such as a localisation/translation group or local users-group.
>
> There are arguments/discussions about what "make money" means.  Often the
> people who do charge argue that a percentage of ALL money should go to TDF
> - people who don't charge point out that it should be only an amount of the
> profits (ie only after all the costs and expenses and after the costs of
> expanding the business a bit have been recouped by whoever was doing the
> charging).
>
>
> The main aim is to get LibreOffice distributed as widely as reasonably
> possible without creating problems for the people doing the distributing.
> OpenOffice has moved slightly away from that idea and is a little more keen
> on getting some sort of recognition for those involved in doing the
> programming.
>
> 3rd party stuff; such as Java, accessibility programs (and anything else
> that is not directly part of LibreOffice itself) each have their own
> "Ts&Cs" (= terms and conditions) of what they want to let you do and what
> they want to prevent.
>
> With something like Java there is likely to be an Open Source
> alternative/version that does have a very similar license to LibreOffice.
>
>
> I have tried to describe the GPL license because that is used quite widely
> in OpenSource projects.  The Mozilla license and LGPL used by LibreOffice
> and a few others aims to be similar but have slight nuances or try to make
> the essential freedoms clearer or more binding under law but they all aim
> to be much the same as the GPL.
>
> The Apache Foundation's licence, used by OpenOffice nowadays, tends to be
> more like the BSD licenses and tends to try to give more credit to the
> programmers and restrict usage a little bit more.  Confusingly some people
> refer to these as being more 'permissive', i think because it gives big
> businesses more control.
>
> Regards from
> Tom :)
>
>
>
> On 15 April 2017 at 10:18, nasrin khaksar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> tudy it, but it was extremely long
>> specially with inclusion of thirdparthy
>>
>


--
we have not sent you but as a mercy to the creation.
holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
in the very authentic narration is:
imam hosein is the beacon of light and the ark of salvation.
best website for studying islamic book in different languages
al-islam.org

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
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: i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

On 04/17/2017 09:01 AM, nasrin khaksar wrote:
> i heard sometimes that openoffice license is license of oracle company.

Oracle purchased Sun. That purchase included the trademarks, copyrights,
and other intellectual property rights held by OpenOffice.org.

After a couple of years, Oracle donated OpenOffice.org, including
trademarks, copyright, and other intellectual property rights to The
Apache Software Foundation.

Which means that Oracles does owns neither Apache Open Office nor
OpenOffice.org.

However, Oracle does own Java, which is used by both LibreOffice and
Apache Open Office.  Given a couple of somewhat bizarre legal theories,
supported by, what shall be termed "interesting' court decisions, an
extremely shaky legal theory can be made that Oracle owns both
LibreOffice, and Apache Open Office. As much as I'd like to think that
Oracle has persuaded itself that ownership of FLOSS is not possible, I
wouldn't put it past them to be willing to squander away a trillion or
so dollars, in lawsuits to assert ownership of LibreOffice, Apache
OpenOffice, and other FLOSS software that it finds either inconvenience,
or a potential cash cow.

> is it true?

There is an apocryphal story of a first legal intern being told examine
a software license. In researching the license, he asked: "Is there any
way, shape, or form, in which Oracle can assert control of the
software?" Upon being told that Oracle was purchasing the company that
made the software whose license was being analysed, the intern said; "I
can not recommend accepting this license, because it will depend upon
Oracle. As an Oracle license, all terms and conditions are subject to
their specific interpretation, which usually comes down to: "All your
bases, they belong to us".  Said intern was dully blacklisted by the
company. A decade later, one of the members of the board of directors
found himself across the dinner table from said intern. The member told
the intern that his prediction about what Oracle would do, turned out to
be valid, with disastrous consequences to the company.

jonathon


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
fudmer rieley fudmer rieley
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

In reply to this post by zahra a
The Oracle purchase of Sun allows oracle to claim ownership in
application software which the whole world contributed to?
Is that correct?

Under prior patent law, it was not the first to file but the first
to invent the objects of a patent that had the valid claim to
actual patent rights?  Under current law, I understand it
now to be the first to file gets all?  Is that correct.

How does patent law work?  

A claim is made by filing the claim with the patent authority
 

Who has a valid claim one who invents or one who files.

Think of it this way..

MR. Island discovers how to make an island from the sand
found at the ocean bottom..  Mr. Island uses his discovery
to produce a brand new island the size of the USA State
of say Georgia, The Island is now in the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean 450 miles off the shore of New York City.
between London and New York City.  

Dr. Patent, LLB, a Lawyer, sees that the mind of Mr.
Island has produced [invented] a very valuable method,
A method that many people would pay a lot of money to
know about because they too want to build their own
private Island in the middle of the ocean.  

Dr. Patent tells his congress, look guys I want to own the
method Mr.  Island invented, please change the law so
that i can own his method.  

Congress debated the issue and decided that many wealthy
people would like to own the products (inventions) of other
people´s minds; so Congress passed  a law that lets the
person who want to own the Island and the person who desire
to own the useful method invented by someone, to be able to
claim ownership in the Island and in the method to produce
the island.

Tangible property law created, out of thin air, ownership
rights based on boundary of the property.
To claim ownership in the Island file that claim in the form
of a deed.  

Intangible property law created, out of thin air, ownership
rights in useful ways to do something.
To claim ownership in the method used to build the Island,
file a patent.


So on with the story,
 
So to claim ownership in the Island (Mr. Island built) Dr.
Patent filed a deed, and had a judge order Mr. Island off
the Island, because the island is now owned by Dr. Patent
This is so, Dr. Patent told the judge, because I have the only
deed ever filed to claim ownership in the land. Mr. island
has no deed.   The judge had no choice but to evict Mr.
Island.

Dr. Patent told Mr. Island, if you will file a claim of ownership
(that is, a patent) in the method used (invented) to build
your Island, I will pay you enough for it, so you can live
comfortably ever after (say $1 million USD)-.  

Mr. Island was broke having been kicked off his own Island
so he signed the patent claim Dr. Patent wrote up for him,
with the Patent office.  The patent office issued to Mr.
Island a patent, which Mr Island then sold to Dr. Patent
for $1 Million USD).

So Mr. Island went to another place in the Atlantic and
used the method Mr. island invented to build another
Island.. and filed  a deed claiming he owned it.  

As soon as Mr. Island moved onto his new Island, Dr.
Patent filed a patent lawsuit, claiming Mr. Island, infringed
¨the method to build Islands¨ patent owned by Dr. Patent.
The patent court awarded Dr. Patent $1 million USD for
patent infringement and ordered Mr. Island to pay
Dr. Patent $1 million USD before the day was out.


From thin air the congress obliged Dr. Patent, and converted
public lands into private ownership by writing the
tangible property law (DEEDs) and again from thin air
congress created a way to for investors and others to own
the products of the human mind of inventors
(methods of doing things) intangible property law.

Dr. Patent licensed the right to use the patent he obtained
from Mr. Island for $500,000; thus far 50 islands have been
built using Mr. Islands method owned by Dr. Patent.
$500,000 * 50 = $25,000,000 profit earned by Dr. Patent.


In short, Congress made it possible for Dr. Patent to steal
both Mr. Island´s Island and his invention of a method to
build such an island.

The story explains why the top 1% own as much as the
entire 99% other percent own.

Patents and deeds transfer ownership from the public to
the private domain, and ownership transfers wealth from
non owners.

IANAL

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 4/18/17, toki <[hidden email]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.
 To: [hidden email]
 Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 8:44 PM
 
 On 04/17/2017 09:01 AM, nasrin
 khaksar wrote:
 > i heard sometimes that
 openoffice license is license of oracle company.
 
 Oracle purchased Sun. That
 purchase included the trademarks, copyrights,
 and other intellectual property rights held by
 OpenOffice.org.
 
 After a
 couple of years, Oracle donated OpenOffice.org, including
 trademarks, copyright, and other intellectual
 property rights to The
 Apache Software
 Foundation.
 
 Which means
 that Oracles does owns neither Apache Open Office nor
 OpenOffice.org.
 
 However, Oracle does own Java, which is used by
 both LibreOffice and
 Apache Open Office. 
 Given a couple of somewhat bizarre legal theories,
 supported by, what shall be termed
 "interesting' court decisions, an
 extremely shaky legal theory can be made that
 Oracle owns both
 LibreOffice, and Apache
 Open Office. As much as I'd like to think that
 Oracle has persuaded itself that ownership of
 FLOSS is not possible, I
 wouldn't put it
 past them to be willing to squander away a trillion or
 so dollars, in lawsuits to assert ownership of
 LibreOffice, Apache
 OpenOffice, and other
 FLOSS software that it finds either inconvenience,
 or a potential cash cow.
 
 > is it true?
 
 There is an apocryphal story of a first legal
 intern being told examine
 a software
 license. In researching the license, he asked: "Is
 there any
 way, shape, or form, in which
 Oracle can assert control of the
 software?" Upon being told that Oracle was
 purchasing the company that
 made the
 software whose license was being analysed, the intern said;
 "I
 can not recommend accepting this
 license, because it will depend upon
 Oracle.
 As an Oracle license, all terms and conditions are subject
 to
 their specific interpretation, which
 usually comes down to: "All your
 bases,
 they belong to us".  Said intern was dully blacklisted
 by the
 company. A decade later, one of the
 members of the board of directors
 found
 himself across the dinner table from said intern. The member
 told
 the intern that his prediction about
 what Oracle would do, turned out to
 be
 valid, with disastrous consequences to the company.
 
 jonathon
 
 
 --
 To
 unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
 Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
 Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
 List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
 All messages sent to this list will be publicly
 archived and cannot be deleted
 

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Harvey Nimmo Harvey Nimmo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

There is much debate about whether software should be the subject of
patents, or rather, copyright/copyleft. The website groklaw.net has a
lot of very interesting material about this. It would be very
interesting to know where the Trump dynasty stands on that; could end
up making a lot of difference to the FLOSS communities and they way
they work!? 

Cheers
Harvey  


On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 07:59 +0000, fudmer rieley wrote:

> The Oracle purchase of Sun allows oracle to claim ownership in
> application software which the whole world contributed to? 
> Is that correct?
>
> Under prior patent law, it was not the first to file but the first 
> to invent the objects of a patent that had the valid claim to 
> actual patent rights?  Under current law, I understand it 
> now to be the first to file gets all?  Is that correct.
>
> How does patent law work?  
>
> A claim is made by filing the claim with the patent authority
>  
>
> Who has a valid claim one who invents or one who files.
>
> Think of it this way.. 
>
> MR. Island discovers how to make an island from the sand
> found at the ocean bottom..  Mr. Island uses his discovery 
> to produce a brand new island the size of the USA State 
> of say Georgia, The Island is now in the middle of the 
> Atlantic Ocean 450 miles off the shore of New York City. 
> between London and New York City.  
>
> Dr. Patent, LLB, a Lawyer, sees that the mind of Mr.
> Island has produced [invented] a very valuable method, 
> A method that many people would pay a lot of money to
> know about because they too want to build their own 
> private Island in the middle of the ocean.  
>
> Dr. Patent tells his congress, look guys I want to own the 
> method Mr.  Island invented, please change the law so 
> that i can own his method.  
>
> Congress debated the issue and decided that many wealthy
> people would like to own the products (inventions) of other
> people´s minds; so Congress passed  a law that lets the
> person who want to own the Island and the person who desire 
> to own the useful method invented by someone, to be able to
> claim ownership in the Island and in the method to produce
> the island. 
>
> Tangible property law created, out of thin air, ownership 
> rights based on boundary of the property.
> To claim ownership in the Island file that claim in the form 
> of a deed.  
>
> Intangible property law created, out of thin air, ownership 
> rights in useful ways to do something. 
> To claim ownership in the method used to build the Island,
> file a patent. 
>
>
> So on with the story, 
>  
> So to claim ownership in the Island (Mr. Island built) Dr. 
> Patent filed a deed, and had a judge order Mr. Island off
> the Island, because the island is now owned by Dr. Patent
> This is so, Dr. Patent told the judge, because I have the only
> deed ever filed to claim ownership in the land. Mr. island 
> has no deed.   The judge had no choice but to evict Mr. 
> Island. 
>
> Dr. Patent told Mr. Island, if you will file a claim of ownership
> (that is, a patent) in the method used (invented) to build
> your Island, I will pay you enough for it, so you can live
> comfortably ever after (say $1 million USD)-.   
>
> Mr. Island was broke having been kicked off his own Island
> so he signed the patent claim Dr. Patent wrote up for him, 
> with the Patent office.  The patent office issued to Mr. 
> Island a patent, which Mr Island then sold to Dr. Patent
> for $1 Million USD). 
>
> So Mr. Island went to another place in the Atlantic and 
> used the method Mr. island invented to build another 
> Island.. and filed  a deed claiming he owned it.  
>
> As soon as Mr. Island moved onto his new Island, Dr. 
> Patent filed a patent lawsuit, claiming Mr. Island, infringed
> ¨the method to build Islands¨ patent owned by Dr. Patent.
> The patent court awarded Dr. Patent $1 million USD for 
> patent infringement and ordered Mr. Island to pay 
> Dr. Patent $1 million USD before the day was out.
>
>
> From thin air the congress obliged Dr. Patent, and converted
> public lands into private ownership by writing the 
> tangible property law (DEEDs) and again from thin air
> congress created a way to for investors and others to own
> the products of the human mind of inventors 
> (methods of doing things) intangible property law. 
>
> Dr. Patent licensed the right to use the patent he obtained
> from Mr. Island for $500,000; thus far 50 islands have been
> built using Mr. Islands method owned by Dr. Patent. 
> $500,000 * 50 = $25,000,000 profit earned by Dr. Patent.
>
>
> In short, Congress made it possible for Dr. Patent to steal
> both Mr. Island´s Island and his invention of a method to 
> build such an island. 
>
> The story explains why the top 1% own as much as the 
> entire 99% other percent own. 
>
> Patents and deeds transfer ownership from the public to 
> the private domain, and ownership transfers wealth from 
> non owners. 
>
> IANAL
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 4/18/17, toki <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] i have questions about licensing in
> libreoffice.
>  To: [hidden email]
>  Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 8:44 PM
>  
>  On 04/17/2017 09:01 AM, nasrin
>  khaksar wrote:
>  > i heard sometimes that
>  openoffice license is license of oracle company.
>  
>  Oracle purchased Sun. That
>  purchase included the trademarks, copyrights,
>  and other intellectual property rights held by
>  OpenOffice.org.
>  
>  After a
>  couple of years, Oracle donated OpenOffice.org, including
>  trademarks, copyright, and other intellectual
>  property rights to The
>  Apache Software
>  Foundation.
>  
>  Which means
>  that Oracles does owns neither Apache Open Office nor
>  OpenOffice.org.
>  
>  However, Oracle does own Java, which is used by
>  both LibreOffice and
>  Apache Open Office. 
>  Given a couple of somewhat bizarre legal theories,
>  supported by, what shall be termed
>  "interesting' court decisions, an
>  extremely shaky legal theory can be made that
>  Oracle owns both
>  LibreOffice, and Apache
>  Open Office. As much as I'd like to think that
>  Oracle has persuaded itself that ownership of
>  FLOSS is not possible, I
>  wouldn't put it
>  past them to be willing to squander away a trillion or
>  so dollars, in lawsuits to assert ownership of
>  LibreOffice, Apache
>  OpenOffice, and other
>  FLOSS software that it finds either inconvenience,
>  or a potential cash cow.
>  
>  > is it true?
>  
>  There is an apocryphal story of a first legal
>  intern being told examine
>  a software
>  license. In researching the license, he asked: "Is
>  there any
>  way, shape, or form, in which
>  Oracle can assert control of the
>  software?" Upon being told that Oracle was
>  purchasing the company that
>  made the
>  software whose license was being analysed, the intern said;
>  "I
>  can not recommend accepting this
>  license, because it will depend upon
>  Oracle.
>  As an Oracle license, all terms and conditions are subject
>  to
>  their specific interpretation, which
>  usually comes down to: "All your
>  bases,
>  they belong to us".  Said intern was dully blacklisted
>  by the
>  company. A decade later, one of the
>  members of the board of directors
>  found
>  himself across the dinner table from said intern. The member
>  told
>  the intern that his prediction about
>  what Oracle would do, turned out to
>  be
>  valid, with disastrous consequences to the company.
>  
>  jonathon
>  
>  
>  -- 
>  To
>  unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
>  Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-u
> nsubscribe/
>  Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiqu
> ette
>  List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
>  All messages sent to this list will be publicly
>  archived and cannot be deleted
>  
>

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Italo Vignoli-6 Italo Vignoli-6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: i have questions about licensing in libreoffice.

In reply to this post by fudmer rieley
On 19/04/2017 09:59, fudmer rieley wrote:
> The Oracle purchase of Sun allows oracle to claim ownership in
> application software which the whole world contributed to?
> Is that correct?

No, it is completely wrong.

Sun owned the copyright of the code (as a consequence of StarDivision
acquisition in 1999), and was asking for a contributor agreement (CLA)
to maintain the copyright on the entire source code (including code
contributed by volunteers, as they were signing the CLA).

Because of this situation, Oracle acquired the ownership of the entire
OOo source code with the acquisition of Sun.

--
Italo Vignoli - LibreOffice Marketing & PR
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829 - email [hidden email]
hangout/jabber [hidden email] - skype italovignoli
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: [hidden email]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted