| |||||||||||||
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software FoundationOracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software FoundationPosted Jun 6, 2011 15:42 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation by kragil Parent article: Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation
Why CAN'T Apache use LO code?
Aiui, they probably won't WANT to, but the LO licence is compatible with the Apache licence - hint - the LO *project* licence is not LGPL3. The program may be, but only because of the legacy licence from Oracle.
LO code is licenced LGPL3+/MPL, and I'm told the MPL2 and Apache2 licences are compatible.
Cheers,
(Log in to post comments)
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 6, 2011 18:04 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
they can't use the LO code because the license is only compatible one way.
you can take apache2 licensed code and put in in GPL3/LGPL3 programs, but you can not take GPL/LGPL code and put it in apache2 programs.
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 6, 2011 19:17 UTC (Mon) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
What prevents Apache-licensed code from using LGPLv3+ libraries? Specific license citations are required.
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 6, 2011 19:20 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
as separate libraries, nothing.
but taking code out of a LGPL library and putting it in an apache2 library is not allowed by the LGPL (anything released under the LGPL3 can be under the LGPL3 or GPL3, no other licenses)
so if OOo wants to stop shipping some functions itself and instead use the FO code as a library, that would be allowed.
but if OOo wants to copy fixes that went into FO and put them in their own library, that isn't allowed.
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 1:02 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
But LO is *N*O*T* licenced LGPL3. (The binary is, but that's a historical accident.)
ONLY EX_ORACLE CODE is licenced LGPL3, which Apache will have under ASL2 courtesy of Oracle.
*A*L*L* the LO code (that is, code contributed to LO) is licenced MPL(2) which is ASL2 compatible.
In other words, if Apache want to take LO code then either (a) it is of Oracle origin, in which case Apache can use it under the ASL, or (b) it is of LO origin, in which case Apache can use it under the MPL.
Read the LO licencing guidelines - all code contributed must be LGPL3+/MPL+.
Cheers,
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 1:47 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if code is contributed to LO under LGPL and MPL without copyright assignment, who has the right to put it under the apache2 license? Oracle sure doesn't (as they don't have the copyright)
LO already contains a lot of code that is not Oracle's to relicense
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:27 UTC (Tue) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
So?
If ASF wants to integrate LGPL or MPL code into their ASL code it would become LGPL or LGPL. That won't work if they intend to stay ASL.
No cookie for you.
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:30 UTC (Tue) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
Err, what I mean is that LGPL and MPL cannot be relicensed to ASL. Ask your friendly license lawyer.
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 17:27 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
But they can be mixed. That is the point.
First of all, FORGET THE (L)GPL. ALL CODE IS DUAL-LICENCED.
So if it comes from Oracle/OO it's ASL. If it comes from LO, it's MPL. (The (L)GPL is irrelevant, because if the code is dual-licenced, you can use the other licence instead.)
So, because Apache distribute as source, and the MPL merely requires that any MPL source files (and any modified MPL source files) accompany the executable - at least as I am led to to understood the MPL - then there is no problem mixing ASL and MPL code so long as the MPL source accompanies the binary.
Given that, you don't even need to relicence!
That was my point about "Apache CAN but WON'T". They CAN take LO code if they so desire. But if they insist on relicencing, then they WON'T take the code.
Cheers,
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 13:33 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
> If ASF wants to integrate LGPL or MPL code into their ASL code it would become LGPL or LGPL.
It depends entirely on how they do the integration. If they mutate the libraries, then yes. If they just call the libraries, then no.
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 17:30 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
How would using MPL code make the program GPL?
And if the code is dual-licenced, it lets the distributor CHOOSE. If I use dual MPL/GPL code, I can use the MPL licence and my code does not become GPL.
Cheers,
Oracle proposes donating OpenOffice.org to Apache Software Foundation Posted Jun 7, 2011 18:21 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
I was referring specifically to LGPL-licensed code, not dual-licensed. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Neither MPL nor LGPL will force the distributor to make their program GPL, it should also be noted.
|
|||||||||||||