incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: CWS licensing / summary ...
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 11:55:17 GMT
On 4 May 2012 12:07, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@suse.com> wrote:
>        The replies so far seem to suggest that it is normal and acceptable for
> code available from the tip of an active branch, from the Apache project
> svn with an AL2 header on it, to not be under AL2. Is that correct ?

Whilst in the Incubator and *not* in a release, yes that is correct.

Upon graduation such incompatibly licensed code will either be removed
or will be licensed under the AL2. Which happens depends on what the
contributors to the AOO project want to make happen.

>> I believe the original question has been answered here and guidance
>> has already been provided on how to identify and fill any *specific*
>> holes an individual might see.
>
>        Perhaps you missed this question which is: How is this code and others
> not mentioned in the SCA going to end up under AL2 ?

That was answered. I said if something is missing then make a specific
proposal and if the community agrees it's needed then we'll deal with
it.

>        I am interested in re-basing the LibreOffice project on something based
> on this AL2 codebase.

Sound great.

>
>        I am happy to put work into identifying those CWS' extracting them as
> patches, etc.

Looking forward to it.

>        I hear and conclude two things:
>
>        1. that you are utterly uninterested in helping us re-base

That is a misrepresentation of what people said. A correct summary
would be that if you have specific CWSs that need to be brought over
and you are prepared to put the work into making it happen then your
contributions will be welcomed. The only exception to this would be if
the *majority* of the community (since code cannot be vetoed in Apache
projects) felt that it was inappropriate for some reason.

>        and/or
>
>        2. that any attempt for us to engage constructively to
>           identify and move code forwards ourselves -will-
>           -inevitably- require us to become a 'contributor'

That is the only way to ensure it happens, yes. The alternative, as
explained, is to raise an issue and hope someone else has the time and
motivation to do the work for you.This is, as you know, the same in
pretty much all open source projects.

Ross

Mime
View raw message