Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4DFA76B9.7010103@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:33:45 -0700
From: Andrew Rist <andrew.rist@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2
 OracleBeehiveExtension/1.0.0.2-OracleInternal
 ObetStats/CATUAF_1292349144501-582467479 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: External dependencies (was Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter
 module)
References: <4DF7D090.5090000@lippka.com>	<4DF7D79D.9020106@gmx.net>
	<4DF7DA4C.6080007@gmx.ch>	<1308091258.3010.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<4DF7E7A8.4090901@ahrens-netz.de>
	<edcd5fa1c8f152dccb765b1d76b161df@tutopia.com>
	<BANLkTin-exSN=FR5_pwjaGXO=Q6g=0kQ6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DF87460.4010802@gmx.net>	<460ddaf3effcbe50956e5843081688c8@tutopia.com>
	<BANLkTi=VK+tXC6J4pUnqMCOAfTJXZ9=q+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <BANLkTin00FOkbYaz9X6JYr=GdznZApk_+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4DFA2C23.9040601@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DFA2C23.9040601@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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