Contemplating the possible retirement of Apache OpenOffice

Posted Sep 3, 2016 2:35 UTC (Sat) by jimjag (guest, #84477)
In reply to: Contemplating the possible retirement of Apache OpenOffice by Wol
Parent article: Contemplating the possible retirement of Apache OpenOffice

All that would have been "required" is that any incoming code and patches be triple licensed; no one wanted or would expect LO to change *its* licensing. No one is suggesting a wholesale relicense. I personally have nothing against copyleft. In many cases, it's the perfect choice.

Contemplating the possible retirement of Apache OpenOffice

Posted Sep 3, 2016 13:06 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

And what approaches did AOO make to ask LO to triple-licence?

Note - I didn't set policy, but most of the licencing stuff on the TDF wiki is (or was, it may have been updated) my work. And it certainly didn't set out to discourage people adding Apache to the list of licences on their work.

If there had been an effort on the part of AOO to reach out and get Apache on the list of LO standard licences, I can't say whether it would have succeeded, but I'm certainly unaware of any such effort.

Unfortunately, I'm only too well aware of the AOO spokes-troll's attempts to antagonise LO devs ... :-(

Cheers,
Wol

Contemplating the possible retirement of Apache OpenOffice

Posted Sep 3, 2016 18:36 UTC (Sat) by dtardon (subscriber, #53317) [Link]

Any individual LibreOffice contributor is free to choose any additional license for his patches. That hardly anybody chooses ASL in addition to MPL/LGPL is really not TDF's fault...