On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > I've lost the thread on this,
it's noisy and open :-) (but it's good to factor out new threads with good subjects) > but I thought that one observation was about the dependencies in > OpenOffice.org (and LibreOffice.org) on material from other sources and not > necessarily under the same license. In that regard, there may be a > difference among some of those in terms of what is considered LGPL/GPL > friendly and what is considered Apache 2.0 friendly. The current > contributors to LibreOffice code are asked to affirm that their contribution > is an MPL/LGPL dual if they have not already done so as part of a submission. > > For assessment of this situation, both distributions have maintained the Sun > Microsystem practice of including a THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.html at the > top-level of the install location. I am sure these are on-line somewhere in > the web view of their code bases, but I've given up looking. (In SVN I can > find stuff. In git, not so much.) The attachment is the one that came with > the LibreOffice 3.3.2 stable release for Windows. I expect (hopefully people will jump in to correct my mistakes) that a software grant [1] will be used. I expect that this will specify a particular artifact, most likely a compressed archive containing source and stuff. I expect due diligence and legal sign-off from the Oracle's internal teams before this happens. It's a bit frustrating but until that lands, it's hard to be sure what's going to be in until it lands... Robert [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
