Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
With the LGPL(/GPL) it is not OK to make a closed-source product based on the project's source code.
With the MPL the core of the project's code is like LGPL(/GPL) license and non-core code can be like Apache license.
The question is rather, what companies would be interested to contribute to LibreOffice, and would rather see an MPL-licensed codebased, compared to the current LGPL.
Relicensing and rebasing LibreOffice
Posted May 28, 2012 20:43 UTC (Mon) by akumria (subscriber, #7773)
Then, presumably, a company wanting to make a commercial product based upon LibreOffice will want to assist in making the portions they need into a robust library they (and others) can re-use.
Then that component can just call into the library, no?
Posted May 29, 2012 5:41 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (guest, #1159)
Also, if the code you're interested in is common to both LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice, then why bother creating a library when you could just use the Apache code under the ASL?
Posted May 29, 2012 7:52 UTC (Tue) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870)
AFAIK, LibO still hasn't given up hope that IBM might want to join in on the fun, and give them the opportunity to still ship their sekr3t-sauce plugins with symphony. AFAIK, that was (one of the) main motivations to go with the MPL in the first place.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds