<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class=""><fieldset style="padding-top:10px; border:0px; border: 3px solid #CCC; padding-left: 20px;" class=""><legend style="font-weight:bold" class="">Signed PGP part</legend><div style="padding-left:3px;" class="">Hi Jan,<br class=""><br class="">why cannot Björn's contributions be licensed under CC-0 or under Public<br class="">Domain? Doug - for example - chose WTFL... Technically this is possible!<br class=""><br class="">It's the same if somebody wants to use APLv2. It is compatible with our<br class="">license and it totally valid.<br class=""></div></fieldset></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Not again, sorry.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Look at:</div><div class=""><a href="https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers#Example_Statement" class="">https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Developers#Example_Statement</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">that is the current rulebook, for development exclusively use <span style="font-family: monospace, Courier; font-size: 14px; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 249);" class="">MPLv2/LGPLv3+ dual license</span><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The ESC can change that rule, but until then, that is how we work with our development repos.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Other types of work is less my concern, but there is an ongoing discussion about how documentation should be licensed.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">rgds</div><div class="">jan I.</div></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>