Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jogischmidt@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F676507.6030007@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:55:35 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Schmidt?= <jogischmidt@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IP clearance issues
References: <1332142824.99626.YahooMailClassic@web113520.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <4F67048D.4040301@googlemail.com> <4F675F9F.7060303@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F675F9F.7060303@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 3/19/12 5:32 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On 03/19/12 05:03, J�rgen Schmidt wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> I see .. That testing is very important, thanks.
>>>
>>> I guess I am rather worried that our first reviewer actually
>>> thought he could trust us on the IP review. I suspect I have
>>> also been the only looking at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>>
>> you were not the only one but I had nothing to add so far ;-)
>>
>> But I don't know if you have the feedback on general@incubator to my
>> request for early feedback.
>>
>
> Yes, and that's precisely why I am worried ;-).
>> Marvin was surprise that our LICENSE file contains ALv2 license only
>> and list not all licenses of used externals.
>>
> No finger pointing but this was a surprise for me too: we were wrongly
> advised that LICENSE should only carry the AL2.
>
> I added a DISCLAIMER file (I used Apache OpenOffice but please note that
> officially we still are the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator), And I did
> some
> more cleanups on the thirdpartylicenses.html which is a good basis to
> complete the information.
>
> I plan to merge the remaining licenses but I want to keep the same
> order as in the NOTICE file: we have the non-Apache stuff in two
> sections according to the license category.
>
>> Any opinions on this how we can address this best?
>>
>
> The great weakness I've seen is that we have left most work to
> Andrew and this shouldn't be a one man effort. Normal audits
> are done by N volunteers dividing the tree in N parts, and binaries
> (particularly zip files) have to be reviewed too.
I agree it shouldn't be a one man show and it depends on Andrew a little 
bit. When he says he has finished the header cleanup from an Oracle 
perspective we can start to take a closer look on the other remaining 
files based on the RAT output.

That said ...
> if we had an updated OpenGrok or a real equivalent it would be
> a lot easier.
of course a working OpenGrok would be nice. We have a local instance 
running that gets updated every night but that doesn't help you at the 
moment :-(

Well my first approach to ask for OpenGrok on the infrastructure mailing 
list was not promising and I gave up after some emails at this time and 
concentrated on other more important things.

But I will try it again because the alternatively proposed tools haven't 
convinced me. So many things where people can start working on ...

>
> As I said we don't need coders for this but this is a good way to
> get to know the components and code structure under OO.

volunteers are welcome indeed ;-)

Juergen

>
> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>> This things are non-technical and anyone with patience and/or
>>> some skills with grep can help a lot!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>
>