License information for extensions on LO's extension site

[toki]

On 2018-08-31 11:52 a.m., Drew Jensen wrote:

> Just curious if the Templates will also require a license to be eligible for the TDF site.

I'd suggest that providing accurate information about the license for
templates is even more critical than for extensions.

I've come across a couple of templates whose intended usage is
implicitly prohibited by the crayon license that it is distributed under.

> Particularly in the case of templates with embedded scripts is not the license not valid if the user is not forced to agree to it?

That depends upon:
* the specific license: For example, GNU GPL 3.0 has no requirements for
a user to accept, or reject a license;
* the legal jurisdiction of the user: Both extension and template
licenses can be construed as "shrink wrap", and as such, not be legally
binding in some legal jurisdictions;

###

Licenses for template is extremely tricky, because they can
inadvertently govern the license that the created content can be
distributed under.

jonathon

jonathon


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x51B69DC37C9DC30D.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20180831/90fe4e2a/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20180831/90fe4e2a/attachment.sig>