On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 15:54, James Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe he is asking > > Why would we want the code to begin with at this point. > > at the time of the fork, we already had all the code that was in OOo up to > that point, now LO has added more code, cleaned up a lot of code, and has > the backing of several large Linux companies. So why at this point do we > need or want to go back to being known as OOo?
I think that the TDF may want the code in order to "rebase" the licensing stack, to provide greater flexibility in adjusting the LibreOffice package's license. According to the LO licensing policy[1], the codebase is mostly Oracle's LPGLv3 license, yet the desire is to move everything to a tri-license[2]. Getting a copy of Oracle's codebase under the ALv2 license means that more of the code can be shipped under all three licenses (LGPLv3, GPLv3, MPLv$whatever). You can't change the license header away from ALv2 (like you can't change it away from LGPLv3 today), but the overall package would have much more flexibility in its licensing. Cheers, -g [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy [2] tho an interesting question: if the MPL was used to entice IBM, but they prefer Apache, then it seems a reasonable to ask whether you want to keep MPL as an option -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] 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
