Re: Björn Balazs license statement
mstahl at redhat.com
Tue Nov 1 19:37:55 UTC 2016
On 01.11.2016 20:14, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 11/10/16 12:51, Michael Meeks wrote:
>> So - the policy does have some basis in usefulness =) Although you are
>> right, we could take contributions under other licenses, it is really
>> non-ideal. And it is seldom an issue, having clarity is helpful.
> Piling in really late, I know, but forcing people to use a licence
> they're not keen on isn't really a good idea.
> Maybe add the following to the policy
> "If people wish to use a different grant of licence they should add the
> following at the end - 'I affirm this gives permission for my code to be
> distributed under the project-standard MPL/LGPL licences'"
> This then also gives us an out, in that if by some chance their choice
> of licence is partly incompatible with ours, they have explicitly given
> us permission anyways :-)
may i suggest you actually *read* the clauses of the MPLv2 that Michael
has pointed out as being particularly helpful, and then think about what
risks accepting code contributions under other licenses lacking such
clauses would expose TDF and downstream distributors to.
More information about the LibreOffice