@Simon: Andrea Pescetti cross-posted to [tdf-discuss] and [openoffice-dev] some clarifying information, but his sending from an @apache.org e-mail is apparently hung up in a moderation queue - he has probably not subscribed with that one. So you are seeing threads following from it that [tdf-discuss] hasn't actually seen yet (except under a cross-posted response from Louis [;<).
In Andrea's post, the contribution page on the AOO Wiki is offered as the Apache OpenOffice response to Jim Jagielski's question: <http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html>. On rereading that a few times, I do find that it is less circumspect than the equivalent TDF page. Part of the disconnect is that LibreOffice contributors don't usually put notices on the contribution. A separate, one-time declaration is used. Clearly, not all of the declaration-granted licenses are necessarily used or shown in the code release (i.e., MPL has not been used). The iCLA recorded by ASF committers does not stipulate any specific open-source license (let alone dual-licensing) whatsoever and it basically empowers ASF to release the contribution under any license insofar as it is compatible with the individual iCLA grant. (The ALv2 does not require someone to stipulate the Apache License either. The AOO contribution page is incorrect about that. The default for a contribution is as I mention in my reply.) In each case though, the grants/declarations are specifically to the project the contribution is submitted to. They don't, in themselves, apply to anyone else. Now, with that context, here is my reply to Pescetti's post on AOO (I didn't want to cross-post or continue the cross-quoting): From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 09:09 To: d...@openoffice.apache.org Cc: 'Jim Jagielski' Subject: RE: Dual licensing of patches and code It is not clear to me that the Apache OpenOffice statement answers the question as it was asked at [tdf-discuss]. I read Jim's question as being about multi-licensing (dual- or more). Not about a contributor making a contribution of their original work in two places and under different licenses in each place. That's very different. If the AOO page is considered an affirmative response to Jim's question, then so is Florian Effenberger's pointing to The Document Foundation license-policy page, <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy>. For me, multi-licensing would be a kind of one-stop contribution that allows the contribution to be used by those who obtain it in accordance with whichever of the multi-licensings they choose. Nothing is done to facilitate that by either project. Furthermore, all of the licenses that are considered have strings on how a contri- bution is accounted for in any combined/derivative work. By the way, there is no mention of the Apache License (any version) in the iCLA that is offered to the ASF and that all committers have on record. It strikes me that a contribution in accordance with the default case in section 5 of the ALv2 is similarly entirely about sections 2, 3 and related definitions. The sections about recipients is not something that governs the contributor's use of their own contribution (a good reason those are not in the iCLA, since an iCLA is entirely about contribution). Cf. <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>. The manner in which TDF collects license grants is rather different, with contributors specifying the licenses that their work can be released under (i.e., they are multi-licensing their contributions). From all of this, you can surmise what I mean to accomplish by my blanket, public grants regarding my contributions to LibreOffice and Apache projects, so that anyone can make us of those contributions, no matter which project the contributed is made to, with the same permissiveness granted to the ASF in an Apache iCLA. And that can be done without my having to make direct contributions in more than one of those places. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 08:25 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org; Andrea Pescetti Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code > On 13-03-09, at 05:39 , Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > > The conversation below happened in public, but not on the OpenOffice > public lists. I believe it's good to record its outcome here on the > OpenOffice > dev list too. Do you know why the question was asked and settled in secret at Apache but has been posed in public at TDF? It seems odd and perhaps political that should happen. S. -- 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
