incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:44:40 GMT
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Suggestions:
>
> 1) We need to get all files needed for the build into SVN.  Right now
> there are some that are copied down from the OpenOffice.org 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.
>

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.


>
> 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
> file.
>
> c) Files that have an incompatible OSS license.  These need to be
> removed/replaced.
>
> 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.
>

talked about it yes but did we reached a final decision?

The migrated wiki is available under http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki and can
be used. Do we want to continue with this wiki now? It's still not clear for
me at the moment.

But we need a place to document the IP clearance and under
http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration we have already some
information.

Juergen


>
>
> -Rob
>
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html
>
> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message