Hi Michael, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@novell.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 08:48 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote: >> 1. TDF takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO >> contributions under the LGPL/MPL and licenses the combined work >> (LibreOffice) under both the LGPL and MPL? > > So if we say MPLv2 and LGPLv3+ - that is fine; and the resulting code > would be under those (compatible) licenses. Which are copy-left. > >> 2. A third party takes OOo under the Apache License and combines it with LO >> contributions under the MPL and proprietary closed-source code of its own to >> create a proprietary closed-source product? > > If they have changed the MPL code modules - they need to release those > changes; otherwise (since the MPL is a weak-copy-left) they can not > release other changes (like extensions) they bundle - obviously. > >> That would not however stop third parties from combining the >> Apache OpenOffice code with LibreOffice code and doing with that whatever >> both licenses allowed. > > Sure - one example is IBM, they have a load of MPL code, and even LGPL > code in Lotus Symphony. Amusingly, IBM are far more pragmatic in > practise than ASF is - one of the tragic ironies of the situation. >
I guess it would be useful to create a wiki page with a FAQ about these license topics :) -- Jesús Corrius <je...@softcatala.org> Document Foundation founding member Mobile: +34 661 11 38 26 Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
