incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norbert Thiebaud <nthieb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Legal question about (re)licensing
Date Wed, 02 May 2012 02:42:57 GMT
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> 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...

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.
As for review... I have yet to see any questions from reviewers,
mentors or ppmc members, to clarify the provenances of these sort of
patches nor the licensing ground behind them.

>
> In all this process, people that have submitted patches were notified
> through bugzilla that we were integrating the code and one person
> even went ahead and requested his patch were reverted (and I did
> it despite considering the patch was not copyrightable).

yeah that was r1195527 - which met Rob's 10 lines threshold - and yet
he did not veto it. in fact it only got reverted (r1198909) because
the author noticed and complained.
So the process is to add code, and wait for the original author to
complain... if he doesn't complain before the release, then it is
deemed to have met the rigorous IP scrutiny that Rob tout ?

Norbert

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".
Rob's 'holier than thou' public attitude on the topic remind me of the
old saying:  "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mime
View raw message