Re: Björn Balazs license statement

[Jan Iversen]

> 
> Signed PGP part
> Hi Jan,
> 
> why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public
> Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!
> 
> It's the same if somebody wants to use APLv2. It is compatible with our
> license and it totally valid.

Not again, sorry.

Look at:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers#Example_Statement <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers#Example_Statement>

that is the current rulebook, for development exclusively use MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license

The ESC can change that rule, but until then, that is how we work with our development repos.

Other types of work is less my concern, but there is an ongoing discussion about how documentation should be licensed.

rgds
jan I.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20161011/efc175ec/attachment.html>