[Libreoffice] Are ISC/BSD-licensed contributions acceptable?

Wols Lists antlists at youngman.org.uk
Thu Nov 25 08:31:38 PST 2010

On 25/11/10 14:47, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> Because it makes lifes more complex, see above? Do you really want
> file.cxx to start like this? 
> /** 45 lines of this code come from Wol, who licensed them under the
>  * BSD. But when you are reading this, it has been merged with 10 lines
>  * contributed under the Apache license, which is probably be moot 
>  * because 5 lines of those had their variables renamed by a guy who 
>  * happened to like the WTFPL. 
>  * Parts of these things were perhaps copied into file2.cxx during 
>  * refactoring by someone contributing under the lzlib
>  * artistic license/CC-0 dual licensing. Have a nice day.  **/
I hadn't thought of refactoring ... :-)

But I think the basics should be that (a) it has to be LGPL-compatible,
and (b) unless it is a major alteration/addition you don't get to monkey
with the licence on the file.

I like playing with legalese, although we'd need a proper lawyer to go
over it. That said, I've found plenty mistakes checking a lawyer's work :-)

Have we got a standard LibreOffice header to go into new files? If not,
I'm quite happy to craft one, along with a policy that tells people what
to do and how we expect them to claim any relevant copyrights. And yes,
I would very much take into considerations concerns about keeping the
list of people low, we don't want too many names in the files or too
many licences in the licence file. Basically, minor changes you have to
look at git, licences mustn't explicitly name a copyright holder.

Would you like me to have a go?


More information about the LibreOffice mailing list