incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: A systematic approach to IP review?
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:00:53 GMT

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 17:27
Subject: A systematic approach to IP review?

If you haven't looked it closely, it is probably worth a few minutes
of your time to review our incubation status page, especially the
items under "Copyright" and "Verify Distribution Rights".  It lists
the things we need to do, including:

 -- Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the
ASF been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the
package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project.

-- Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been
updated to reflect the new ASF copyright.

-- Check and make sure that for all code included with the
distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right
to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute.

-- Check and make sure that all source code distributed by the project
is covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache,
BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially
the same terms.

Some of this is already going on, but it is hard to get a sense of who
is doing what and how much progress we have made.  I wonder if we can
agree to a more systematic approach?  This will make it easier to see
the progress we're making and it will also make it easier for others
to help.


1) We need to get all files needed for the build into SVN.  Right now
there are some that are copied down from the website
during the build's bootstrap process.   Until we get the files all in
one place it is hard to get a comprehensive view of our dependencies.

2) Continue the CWS integrations.  Along with 1) this ensures that all
the code we need for the release is in SVN.

3)  Files that Oracle include in their SGA need to have the Apache
license header inserted and the Sun/Oracle copyright migrated to the
NOTICE file.  Apache RAT (Release Audit Tool) [2] can be used to
automate parts of this.

4) Once the SGA files have the Apache headers, then we can make
regular use of RAT to report on files that are lacking an Apache
header.  Such files might be in one of the following categories:

a) Files that Oracle owns the copyright on and which should be
included in an amended SGA

b) Files that have a compatible OSS license which we are permitted to
use.  This might require that we add a mention of it to the NOTICE

c) Files that have an incompatible OSS license.  These need to be

d) Files that have an OSS license that has not yet been
reviewed/categorized by Apache legal affairs.  In that case we need to
bring it to their attention.

e) (Hypothetically) files that are not under an OSS license at all.
E.g., a Microsoft header file.  These must be removed.

5) We should to track the resolution of each file, and do this
publicly.  The audit trail is important.  Some ways we could do this
might be:

a) Track this in SVN properties.  So set ip:sga for the SGA files,
ip:mit for files that are MIT licensed, etc.  This should be reflected
in headers as well, but this is not always possible.  For example, we
might have binary files where we cannot add headers, or cases where
the OSS files do not have headers, but where we can prove their
provenance via other means.

b) Track this is a spreadsheet, one row per file.

c) Track this is an text log file checked in SVN

d) Track this in an annotated script that runs RAT, where the
annotations document the reason for cases where we tell it to ignore a
file or directory.

6) Iterate until we have a clean RAT report.

7) Goal should be for anyone today to be able to see what work remains
for IP clearance, as well as for someone 5 years from now to be able
to tell what we did.  Tracking this on the community wiki is probably
not good enough, since we've previously talked about dropping that
wiki and going to MWiki.




View raw message