Not sure if this will help http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html
but that site allows one to read the licenses in more detail. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>wrote: > > I dropped an important word: > > "I have *no* quarrel with others who want their code to be handled > differently." > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 20:54 > To: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org > Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences > > I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is > more important. > > With regard to technicalities: > > It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code > bases. Period. That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including > Apache OpenOffice. > > On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the > Free Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice > to incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence. It is > necessary to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is > derived from ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation. > (It is similar to employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.) > > I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological > positions on where they are willing to contribute. > > I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for > Apache committers. It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me > can do essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are > assured that I can't revoke that grant. I still have all of my rights to > what I contribute. That's where I stand with regard to licensing. I have > quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently. > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02 > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences > > > You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of > what is the differences between them. That said, it still is all about > what the developer feels is a better license for their coding. What I > have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding > under one type of licensing over another. If they do not like the > "default" licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute > their coding to that project. > > The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO > project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a > more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted? Can > software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still > gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other > version that then becomes part of that company's software "ownership" > and no longer available for an open source project? > > On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it. > > > > Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions > does not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as > use by individuals in their business or institutional activities. > > > > - Dennis > > > > PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply > Apache License. > > > > DETAILS > > > > Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF > a perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms. There is > no transfer of ownership whatsoever. (Just for a moment of irony, it was > the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of > ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.) > > > > You can find the ALv2 everywhere. The Committer License Agreement (CLA) > is here: > > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt>. > > > > The key statement is this: > > > > "Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation > > and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, > > You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to > > Your Contributions." > > > > Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their > own (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant. > It is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this. > > > > This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that > LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific > licenses (and say nothing about patents). > > > > The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is > not a reciprocal license. It does not require that derivative works be > provided in source code and under the same license. The ALv2 also has no > limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded > system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service. > > > > The license differences have no practical impact on end users. It does > have ideological importance to contributors. Some end users may want to > express their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such > allegiance, it is valuable to stick to the facts. > > > > - Dennis > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19 > > To: discuss@documentfoundation.org > > Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences > > > > [ ... ] > > As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding > > they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that > > project the ownership of the coding. Whether or not the "wording" is > > stating that, that is what most developers I have "talked" with have > > told me. > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > 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 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > 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 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > 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 > -- Jonathan Aquilina -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
