Portions of www.openoffice.org are Copyright 1999, 2010 by contributing authors and Oracle and/or its affiliates.
Sections or single pages are covered by certain licenses. If a license notice is displayed, you may use the content of that page according to that license.
In all other cases, the page is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (ALv2).
Apache OpenOffice releases are made available under the Apache License 2.0.
Apache Releases follow specific policies concerning licensing that are closely tied to the branding of the product. It still may be possible, however, to find older releases through third parties or Internet archives that lie out of the control of the Apache Project. For this reason it is highly recommended to review carefully the documentation included with the software.
For past releases under the SUN/Oracle umbrella, OpenOffice.org used a single open-source license for the source code and a separate documentation license for most documents published on the website without the intention of being included in the product. The source-code license was the GNU Lesser General Public License. Effective OpenOffice.org 3.0 Beta, OpenOffice.org used the LGPL v3. The document license was the Public Document License (PDL).
Works beside code donated to the project under cover of the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) were held jointly by Oracle for the project under the project's prevailing license, in this case, the LGPL v.3. Even if you had already submitted a copyright agreement (e.g., the SCA or its predecessors), you could also sign the PDL per work contributed, in which case the PDL took precedence. In some cases, the use of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( "Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5") was also permitted. See below for details on the circumstances of using this license.
You can freely modify, extend, and improve the OpenOffice.org source code. The LGPL requires that all changes must be made available if published. For more information on the LGPL, please also visit the: Free Software Foundation's FAQ.
The preference was always for contributions of editable work. But in those cases where editable material was difficult to obtain, there were several options; all presumed that the developer held copyright in the work: