I have trouble imagining MPL'd binaries being baked into an Apache offering.

1.  For now, it doesn't matter.  At the moment, there are no separable MPL'd 
bits into something like reusable libraries at all.  There is simply no 
re-licensing of LibreOffice (especially the still-significant LGPL parts and 
derivatives that are from OpenOffice.org and that are not relicenseable at all).

2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly awkward 
unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single platform and 
programming model.  In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up C++ and the Java 
dependencies are shrinking.  And for a reference implementation, or the parts 
of Apache OpenOffice that could serve that purpose, I don't think that will fly 
at all.

 - Dennis

PS: NEW SPECULATIVE TOPIC.  If the Apache Incubator has all of the code base of 
OpenOffice.org that is covered by the Oracle copyright, its being available 
under AFL 2.0 is a *benefit* to LibreOffice.  In that case, LibreOffice can 
re-acquire the AFL 2.0 bits and, for what is reasonably re-integrateable under 
the already-restructured LibreOffice code base, have that be the basis for 
relicensing the LibreOffice derivative as MPL or LGPL3+/MPL (or whatever 
combination of reciprocal licenses that tickles their fancy).  Short of a 
separate *permissive* license grant from Oracle directly to The Document 
Foundation, I don't see any other way for LibreOffice to have anything but 
LGPL3+ in our lifetimes.  The Apache OpenOffice availability is an avenue for 
LibreOffice changing its (multi-)licensing if and when it chooses to do so 
(though, like all good comedy, timing is everything).  [There are details to 
manage with regard to code provenance in order to pull this off, but it should 
work and managing code provenance is a good idea either way.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 

Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 14:36
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OO/LO License

[ ... ]  Components and extensions with difficult IP provenance OOo might not 
have a place under the ASL. If LO/TDP were willing to package such components 
in, for example, an MPL licensed LO binary library, then the Apache OO podling 
or project might use these as a part of OOo until it makes the decision to 
replace it with other code.

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Reply via email to