incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: A systematic approach to IP review?
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:26:42 GMT
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:

> Hi;
> Is there an updated SGA already?

good question and where can we find it?


> I think there will likely be a set of files of uncertain license
> that we should move to apache-extras. I am refering specifically
> to the dictionaries: Oracle might have property over some but not
> all. I propose we rescue myspell in apache-extras and put the
> dictionaries there to keep it as an alternative. I have no idea
> where to get MySpell though.
> While here, if there's still interest in maintaining the Hg
> history, seems to be a nice alternative: it's
> rather specialized in Mercurial.
> Cheers,
> Pedro.
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:27:05 -0400, Rob Weir <> 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 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
>> 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.
>> -Rob
>> [1]**projects/openofficeorg.html<>
>> [2]**rat/ <>

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