Tiago Santos license statement doubt

[Tiago Santos]

Hello again Jan!


I understand there should be no issue, since all the requirements 
mentioned were followed, except to have the written permission forwarded 
to the project.

I already have the waiver in Portuguese and just need to know to whom 
should I address it.


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

(...)

>  The license must be known and accepted.


Those thesauri are ‘original’ in the sense that they were converted, 
merged, and rebuilt ‘from scratch’. Unlike the first patch, there is 
only a small minority of lines that look like any of the source files. I 
credit the other authors/projects and included the licences in the 
Leiame file (Readme) inside the articles, for the word relations these 
projects provide.


 > - you cannot change the license, without the written permission from 
the author (and we have a copy).


Can I make LO licence statement now, or, once I make the statement I am 
interfering with the base licences, and as such, I must wait until PAPEL 
and Onto.pt author also grants a specific licensing change permission 
for this project?

Sorry for these doubts, but, at least for me, these matters are very 
confusing and overwhelming.


Since this discussion pertains him, I copy in Hugo G. Oliveira, 
responsible for both projects, as well.


Best regards,

Tiago Santos


Às 09:43 de 26-08-2016, jan iversen escreveu:
> Hi
>
> 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 <http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/>."
>
> 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 
>> <http://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.
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>> PS - Apologies for the former unrevised email. This email 
>> punctuation, spelling and grammar revision from the former one.
>
> No problem.