Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ralph.goers@dslextreme.com
 designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
From: Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim_ivzNknJBjA8d5OoHuuXnBVOsFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:01:03 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3C7392B0-FADC-42E8-A42C-7E0ACF57F89E@dslextreme.com>
References: <BANLkTimxpfkA0PFH1iqkfUNX8jpxexQqgw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DECDDDD.4060609@lippka.com>
 <BANLkTim_ivzNknJBjA8d5OoHuuXnBVOsFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org


On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka <cl@lippka.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) =
correct my
>> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if =
requested. But
>> this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
>=20
> I'll share my understanding.
>=20
> My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not
> accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious
> consideration.  After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and
> Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving
> this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list
> to start from.  If we needed more, we could discuss that later.
>=20
> This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May.  After discussions with
> lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent
> via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day.  Others with no association to
> either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline.
>=20
> My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains
> only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under
> incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to
> include a standard ASF software grant.
>=20
> While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more,
> and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this
> comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at
> Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith.
>=20
> It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if
> those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests,
> that we will obtain subsequent software grants.

Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote =
for the proposal.  =46rom what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary =
Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His summary ended =
with "Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver something that is =
even close to OOo as it is now."   As I've said before, I don't want to =
see the project start off with an extremely large amount of work to do =
just to get something working.  In later posts I see you got more files =
added to the list by Oracle and a list of more missing files from Simon. =
 I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the point =
where those far more familiar with the code than I am can verify it is =
at a reasonable starting point before we vote on this.

Ralph=

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org