incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Rist <andrew.r...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: External dependencies (was Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module)
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:33:45 GMT

On 6/16/2011 9:15 AM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 16.06.2011 16:45, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Greg Stein<gstein@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:09, Pedro Giffuni<giffunip@tutopia.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:59:12 +0200, Mathias 
>>>> Bauer<Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net>
>>>> ...
>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that nowhere in the
>>>>> code repository we can have code that links against LGPL code. And of
>>>>> course extensions are part of our code base also.
>>>
>>> The repository can contain code that is licensed with a permissive
>>> license (ALv2, MIT, BSD). Of course, we try to have only "our" code,
>>> but over in httpd is a copy of PCRE, and APR has a copy of Expat.
>>> Stuff that is not "our" code must be listed in the NOTICE file.
>>>
>>> We cannot have any code in the repository that has a reciprocal 
>>> license.
>>>
>>
>> Could you clarify one thing for me, please?
>>
>> I thought we could take the Oracle code as-is, and check it in, verify
>> that it is complete and builds, but that we would then be required to
>> resolve the license issues before could have a release or graduate.
>> Is that incorrect?  Are we required to resolve these issues before we
>> even accept the SGA'ed code?  It makes it difficult to collaborate on
>> resolving these issues if we cannot get the initial code into SVN.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> The Oracle code as-is will not be sufficient to build anything.
> The initial list of files from Oracle misses several thousand files 
> (e.g. nearly the complete build system files) because these files 
> don't have copyright headers in them. To the best of my knowledge, 
> they are under Oracle's copyright, but it's not up to me to decide on 
> that.
>
> People are working on that, but we obviously have to wait. Let's use 
> the time to go through all files where the copyright situation is 
> unclear or where we already know that the copyright holder is someone 
> else (I have posted a first list already).
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
I think this is a misunderstanding of "the Oracle code".  I think Rob is 
talking about the entire contents of the OOo source control, where 
Mathias is thinking of the files in the SGA.

So the questions are:
  - Is there anything in the Apache process that stops us from pulling 
in the entire source control from OOo?
  - Will that set of files enable us to build OOo (across platforms, etc.)?
  - Is that the best starting place for beginning the code remediation, 
like removing bits that cannot be relicensed, or are not license compatible?

Andrew

Mime
View raw message