+1 On 4 Jun 2011 23:25, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
I have trouble imagining MPL'd binaries being baked into an Apache offering. 1. For now, it doesn't matter. At the moment, there are no separable MPL'd bits into something like reusable libraries at all. There is simply no re-licensing of LibreOffice (especially the still-significant LGPL parts and derivatives that are from OpenOffice.org and that are not relicenseable at all). 2. With regard to building distributions, binary libraries are terribly awkward unless Apache were to limit its OpenOffice project to a single platform and programming model. In contrast, LibreOffice is going full-up C++ and the Java dependencies are shrinking. And for a reference implementation, or the parts of Apache OpenOffice that could serve that purpose, I don't think that will fly at all. - Dennis PS: NEW SPECULATIVE TOPIC. If the Apache Incubator has all of the code base of OpenOffice.org that is covered by the Oracle copyright, its being available under AFL 2.0 is a *benefit* to LibreOffice. In that case, LibreOffice can re-acquire the AFL 2.0 bits and, for what is reasonably re-integrateable under the already-restructured LibreOffice code base, have that be the basis for relicensing the LibreOffice derivative as MPL or LGPL3+/MPL (or whatever combination of reciprocal licenses that tickles their fancy). Short of a separate *permissive* license grant from Oracle directly to The Document Foundation, I don't see any other way for LibreOffice to have anything but LGPL3+ in our lifetimes. The Apache OpenOffice availability is an avenue for LibreOffice changing its (multi-)licensing if and when it chooses to do so (though, like all good comedy, timing is everything). [There are details to manage with regard to code provenance in order to pull this off, but it should work and managing code provenance is a good idea either way.] -----Original Message----- From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 14:36 To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: OO/LO License [ ... ] Components and extensions with difficult IP provenance OOo might not have a place under the ASL. If LO/TDP were willing to package such components in, for example, an MPL licensed LO binary library, then the Apache OO podling or project might use these as a part of OOo until it makes the decision to replace it with other code. [ ... ] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
