Jim Jagielski wrote: > Bjoern Michaelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > That was not what either Florian or the policy said. This is a > > matter of community, not just of license. Such combinations of > > licenses do not lead to a contribution being automatically > > accepted or rejected, either at Apache or at TDF, we look at each > > case on its merits. > > > > That is true, and I, of course, understand that. The question is > whether such a triple-licensed patch would be rejected *regardless* > of technical merit, and that is a valid question to ask. > Hi Jim,
Florian answered that exhaustively in his earlier email: On Mar 7, 2013, Florian Effenberger wrote: > > as our licensing page states, in order to contribute to > > LibreOffice and be part of our community, we require a > > dual-license of MPL/LGPLv3+ for contributions, which gives > > everyone the benefit of the strong rights these licenses > > grant. From time to time, depending on the specific case and the > > quality of the code, we may use and merge other licensed pieces of > > code with compatible licenses. We examine each case, depending on > > its merits. > > > > In theory, code under a triple license is just as acceptable. In > > practice, however, TDF has hundreds of affiliated developers > > working as a team together, doing the actual code review and > > acceptance work. There is a spectrum of developer opinion on your > > nurturing of a competing project. Many core developers may be less > > inclined to invest their time into significant, active assistance: > > mentoring, reviewing, finding code pointers, merging, back > > porting, and so on, for functionality that will not provide a > > distinctive value for LibreOffice. > > > > So, while there may be many possible acceptable variations of > > inbound license and contributions, there are likely relational > > consequences of those choices that are hard to quantify. Having > > said that, all developers who want to contribute constructively to > > LibreOffice are welcome in our community, and we have a high > > degree of flexibility to fulfill their genuine needs. The best > > thing to do is just to point them to our developers list. > Jim Jagielski wrote: > Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity > of the contacts, but that should not matter. > I understand, but in general we like to work directly with those contributing the code, rather than dealing in hypotheticals. With kind regards, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
