On 11.03.2015 10:53, jan i wrote: > On 11 March 2015 at 10:33, Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> As it seems that I will be retired in advance (4 years) in July, I will >> have more time and I plan to join another project. As this project uses a >> different licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0), I would use for my original >> contributions, currently under ALv2.0, a double licence (ALv2.0 and >> CC-BY-SA 3.0) to make my contributions regarding OpenOffice (currently docs >> only) available for the 2 projects. >> > We do not have a problem with double licensing, actually it is in use for > quite a number of places. > > The preferred way is of course to submit the original with the ALv2 > license, and then add the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license when committing to the > second project. This is the standard way with absolutely no problems > independent of how closed or open the second license is. > > You can also add the double license directly in our repo, here we would > need to look more careful at the license to see if it limits our own usage > or that of downstream projects. > A second license in addition to ALv2.0 can't limit the usage because the user has the choice to contract one or both of the licenses.
But: if a user creates a derived work and puts it unter CC-BY_SA only,
Apache can't use the derived work.
("Use" includes also "improve" and "share".)
So the problem is the use of improvements.
Kind regards
Michael
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
