On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:59:58PM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 12:05 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> Sure I can: the code being *dual*-licensed means anybody legitly >> getting a copy of the code can *choose* between obeying the LGPLv2.1 >> *OR* obeying the SISSL. I chose LGPLv2.1. > Seems reasonable on the face of it to me - the header change > is fine. Of course, we have no option of a plus license there which > is sad, but hopefully over time, bit by bit we can incrementally > re-write it as a clean MPL/LGPLv3+ thingit. OK, then. To implement that "hopefully over time, bit by bit we can incrementally re-write it as a clean MPL/LGPLv3+ thingit", we need to clearly establish that all future contributions to these files are LGPLv2.1+ / MPL1.1. So I'm changing the headers *again* to say (with parts in parentheses actually expanded out, and X replaced by the right year): /************************************************************************* * * Effective License of whole file: * * (LGPLv2.1 blurb) * * Parts "Copyright by Sun Microsystems, Inc" prior to August 2011: * * The Contents of this file are made available subject to the terms of * the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 * * Copyright: 200X by Sun Microsystems, Inc. * * Contributor(s): Joerg Budischewski * * All parts contributed on or after August 2011: * * ( * LO's TEMPLATE.SOURCECODE.HEADER with: * sed /LGPLv3/LGPLv2.1/ * Major Contributor(s): [ Copyright (C) 2011 Lionel Elie Mamane <lio...@mamane.lu> ] * ) * ************************************************************************/ -- Lionel _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
