incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffu...@tutopia.com>
Subject Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:19:03 GMT


--- On Mon, 9/19/11, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
...
> 2011/9/19 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>:
...
> >
> > do you mean to check in the files under ext_source
> into svn and remove it
> > later on when we have cleaned up the code. Or do you
> mean to put it
> > somehwere on apache extras?
> > I would prefer to save these binary files under apache
> extra if possible.
> >
> 
> 
> Why not just keep in in SVN?   Moving things
> to Apache-Extras does not
> help us with the IP review.   In other
> words, if we have a dependency
> on a OSS module that has an incompatible license, then
> moving that
> module to Apache Extras does not make that dependency go
> away.  We
> still need to understand the nature of the dependency: a
> build tool, a
> dynamic runtime dependency, a statically linked library, an
> optional
> extensions, a necessary core module.
>

But adding in stuff that we have to remove immediately (nss,
seamonkey, .. ) doesn't help either. I also think a lot of
that stuff has to be updated before brought in: ICU
apparently would be trouble, but the Apache-commons, ICC,
and other stuff can/should be updated.

<snip>

>> a) Track this in SVN properties.  So set ip:sga
> for the SGA files,
> >> ip:mit for files that are MIT licensed, etc.


I thought we had delayed updating the copyrights in the
header to ease the CWS integration. I still hope to see
more of those, especially anything related to gnumake
(I don't know when, but dmake has to go!).

Using the SVN properties is a good idea. And we do have
to start the NOTICES file.

All just IMHO, of course.

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message