incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Date Sat, 04 Jun 2011 22:24:59 GMT
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 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
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 [] 

Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 14:36
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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message