Tiago Santos license statement doubt

jan iversen jani at documentfoundation.org
Fri Aug 26 08:43:56 UTC 2016


For some reason, your email was duplicated, but let me try to answer your questions.

First of all let me say it is nice to see someone take the license seriously, a lot of people says "Lets do it without license" and believes that makes their software open and free.

> Recently, I have been pointed to the Get Involved page, and I would like to subscribe to the license terms posted there, though I would like to ask advice about my previous submissions before proceeding.
I am the culpit, who commented on your bugzilla patches.

> The first patch is a corrected merge of European Portuguese and Brazilian LibreOffice auto-correction files, explained and submitted on bug 97439.
> I do not have many doubts about this patch since it was based on two files already present in LibreOffice, and as such, they should also be licensed under MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license.
You submitted it as an attachment to bugzilla, and these follow the footer note on 
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/ "Source code form contributions such as patches are considered to be modifications under the Mozilla Public License v2.0."

Furthermore you did not directly merge them into the master branch, I did that in your name, acting as a "guarantee" for the license.

We do accept smaller patches without a license statement, but as soon as you submit something bigger or more complicated, the license statement is demanded, to avoid any doubt.

> The main doubts come from the second patch and third patches, posted on bug 101616. They are vastly increased thesaurus for European Portuguese language (though the third patch may be suitable for Brazilian Portuguese after review).
> These last two patches were posted as a package with a copy of the base licenses since they are based in the already existing thesaurus from LibreOffice (MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license) and two other European Portuguese academic ontologies with free distribution licenses. I requested email approval from of the author, in addition to the public claim of free use from project PAPEL, and Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license from project Onto.pt. Though they should be compatible with MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license, I am not absolutely sure they are.
These patches are still pending to be merged on master.

It is important that patches submitted are your own work and thus free of other license bindings.

If submitting work of others, there are a couple of extra rules to follow:
- The work must be credited to the original author
- you cannot change the license, without the written permission from the author (and we have a copy).
- The license must be known and accepted.

We do use the CCA license for a lot of our work, and that is normally ok.

A good advice is to submit original work as a separate patch, followed by your work, so that we have the right crediting in our git logs.

> Can someone with more knowledgeable of this licensing terms advise me on this matter, so I can proceed with the subscription to the licence, and these former patches can be made useful to others.
I hope to have answered your good questions and look forward to see your license statement, as well as more patches :-)

Have a good weekend.
jan I.

> PS - Apologies for the former unrevised email. This email punctuation, spelling and grammar revision from the former one.

No problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20160826/27e05ff3/attachment.html>

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list