incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Thiebaud <>
Subject Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date Tue, 01 May 2012 17:20:36 GMT
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> We accept relatively small contributions without an ICLA.   But all
> contributions get reviewed, and all releases go through scans (what we
> call RAT == Release Audit Tool) and are voted on in a transparent,
> open process.

RAT does not help you track to provenance of patches applied to existing files.
RAT only check that a correct/compatible license is claimed, not that
it is true.

> 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 ?


View raw message