incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wolf Halton <wolf.hal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [proposal] development for the first AOO release
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:19:38 GMT
Pedro ++


On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:

> Please note that we are doing both simultaneously to
> avoid breaking the build.
>
> We do have to update the task list. There are some
> uncommitted advances (libegg, ucpp) and some WIP
> (nss), but there are still some binaries used in
> the windows build and the glibc stubs. Otherwise,
> we are doing pretty well and its a matter of hoping
> Oracle wont leave additional license holes in the
> SGA.
>
> Pedro.
>
> --- On Mon, 10/24/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to propose the following development
> > milestones on our way to the first AOO release:
> >
> > - "IP cleared" milestone
> > For this milestone we should remove all 3rd party
> > components which are not compliant to Apache's "Third-Party
> > Licensing Policy" [1]. All license headers in the source
> > code files should be updated according to Oracle's SGA.
> > Additionally, we may update certain information in the
> > product in order to reflect that the product is now coming
> > from Apache (e.g. the splash screen, the about dialog,
> > ...).
> > Then the IP review required by Apache could be performed in
> > order to meet the corresponding requirements for our first
> > release.
> > This milestone would result in an OpenOffice.org missing a
> > lot of important features, but this milestone would be the
> > basis regarding Apache's IP rules. This milestone could be
> > released according to the Apache rules.
> >
> > - "features back" milestone
> > For this milestone we should work on bringing back the
> > features which are lost in the previous milestone. I do not
> > think that we have to bring back every feature for a first
> > release. Thus, we would have got the possibility to work on
> > the features which are of most interest. At some point we
> > could create a "release candidate" and start working on
> > stabilizing it for a first release, if we think that the
> > "must have" features are back.
> >
> >
> > In order to coordinate efforts and to avoid duplicate work
> > I propose to use the IP clearance wiki page [2].
> > The basis for its content is more or less the Apache
> > Migration wiki page [3]. Some additional information has
> > been collected on certain 3rd party components. Also
> > priorities have been assigned. But its content is not
> > "nailed in stone". It currently reflects more or less the
> > input and opionions of the editing contributors to these IP
> > clearance issues. Thus, it would be a living document to
> > reflect our knowlegde about these IP clearance issues. It
> > would also document our efforts and our decisions regarding
> > these efforts.
> >
> >
> > Any remarks/comments/improvements/adjustments?
> > Any objections to follow such plan for our first release?
> >
> >
> > Best regards, Oliver.
> >
> > P.S.: I will be out-of-office for the rest of the week.
> > Thus, I will probably not reply to your input regarding my
> > proposal this week - please excuse.
> >
> > References:
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance
> > [3] http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration
> >
>



-- 
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com

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