incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <>
Subject Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 04:23:51 GMT
On 05/01/12 21:42, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> On 05/01/12 12:20, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> For larger contributions, an ICLA (or an SGA) is in order.  Ditto for
>>>> smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns.  Remember, any
>>>> committer can veto a patch.  So incoming patches without an ICLA need
>>>> to meet a high bar to get into the code.  My default posture would be
>>>> to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come with an
>>>> iCLA.
>>> really? so why didn't you veto r1182539, for example ?
>> I committed it so I will answer what is my personal position on this.
>> The patches were submitted to Oracle which provided the bugzilla
>> dump to us. At the time the patches were committed, the codebase
>> was under LGPLv3. The license for the code headers were later
>> changed by Oracle in hands of Andrew Rist.
> Nice ex-post facto rationalization... so lets take r1226336 where you
> pushed code that was not yours _after_ the AL2 re-license of the base
> by Andrew...

I am really flattered that you have followed my commits so
carefully, no matter the reasons ;).

In the case of r1226336 I replicated for FreeBSD a change for
linux that was already committed before the move to ASF.
The author of the code was, a SUN/Oracle employee so I
don't see how he would've complained, but much more
relevant for licensing purposes, the code was already
under AL2. The issue number was noted only for
reference / background information.

> In any case, the point is that Rob's claim that "My default posture
> would be to veto any patch more than 10 lines long that does not come
> with an iCLA." does not seems to be enforced in practice.

I don't speak for Rob.

I personally would argue against his specific 10 line limit and focus
more about the quality of the contribution if the argument comes
to be. I do think iCLAs are really about community building than
enforcing laws although I do recognize one needs rules at some

> PS: the specific svn revisions here are not the central point, the
> point is the lack of any discussion/scrutiny on any of these followed
> by the self-fulfilling prophecy: "To be released the code must be
> clean. Releasing imply a detailed IP review (RAT was run), so surely
> if the release was approved by a vote then the release _is_ IP clean,
> and therefore if it is released then it is clean".

I think you are just trying to find some silly excuse to complain
about code that *you* clearly didn't write or own. All the code
either from version control or bugzilla was provided by Oracle
and all the code, and I mean *all* of it, has been carefully
audited in ways that no OpenOffice derivative has done before.


View raw message