On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 12:32 -0700, BRM wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Kohei Yoshida <[email protected]> > > To: BRM <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Sent: Mon, June 6, 2011 11:44:37 AM > > Subject: Re: [Libreoffice] LibreOffice licensing > > > > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 07:39 -0700, BRM wrote: > > > > > Just remember, that even with LGPL/GPL the changes _do not have to be > > > contributed back to the community_; only made available to the customers > > > of > >that > > > > > product upon request (per LGPL, GPL and MPL). > > > > Not entirely correct. The source has to be made available to the legal > > recipients of the binary. Whether or not they are customers is > > irrelevant in this context. > > When dealing with a proprietary product, they are one-in-the-same, however > they > present the EULA.
Not one-in-the-same (sic). But I think we are talking past each other, so I won't discuss any further. Your statement already implies that they are not exactly the same. > > > IOW, TDF may not necessarily get the contribution. It's just like any > >downstream > > > > > project - they can modify it and don't necessarily have to contribute > > > those > > > > modifications back to the upstream project. > > > > Sure. But we can certainly ask for the source if we are interested, and > > they are obligated to provide it if we have (legally) received the > > binary, under the same license as the original source code. This is a > > very important point. > > As you pointed out - only if you have a _legal_ right to ask. > That won't likely be the case though unless you are their customer. Beta test, evaluation versions, demos etc..? There are a number of ways of obtaining the binary legally without being a customer. > Yes, they can't prevent you from distributing the GPL/LGPL/MPL portion of the > work; but they could prevent you from distributing their additions to the > degree > that the MPL/GPL/LGPL derivative work restrictions apply, if at all. > > > > Sure, it works best when they do as everyone benefits, but they are not > > > _required_ to do so. > > > > I wouldn't put it that way. It works better for the downstream > > maintainers if they upstream their work, to make it easier to maintain > > their own modifications. If they think the benefit outweighs the cost > > of upstreaming, then they have every right not to upstream their > > changes. > > > > > I only mention this, as it is often overlooked - and in comments like > > > the > >above > > > > > - by Meeks and others - they seem to forget that aspect about Copy-Left, > > > LGPL/GPL/MPL. > > > > I don't think it is overlooked, but is already implied. > > Overlooked b/c of the nature of the statement. Your next response goes to > show > it... I don't understand the connection. > Only if the end-user obtains the source to provide to the developer. Of course. > The developer may not necessarily be granted the right by the proprietary > distributor to get direct access to the source. > So I still maintain that it is "end-users" and not _necessarily_ "developers" > that Copy-left is about. Ok. This is already becoming a meaningless word game. My point basically is that the distinction between the end users and developers are not necessarily clear cut when talking about copy-left licenses. No more no less. And I believe, based on what you said you also agree with that. > However, if I as a developer come along and tell them that I could add some > feature to it, they would need to ask for and obtain the source code for me > if > that was necessary. Of course. I never said that the developers didn't have to get the source code to service the software. Anyway, this is already off-topic here on this list. I suggest we end this thread here, and if anybody is interested on pursuing this, take it to a more appropriate list. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
