Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B6CB2C7BA for ; Wed, 2 May 2012 02:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 68869 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2012 02:43:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 68769 invoked by uid 500); 2 May 2012 02:43:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 68747 invoked by uid 99); 2 May 2012 02:43:27 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2012 02:43:27 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nthiebaud@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.47] (HELO mail-pb0-f47.google.com) (209.85.160.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 May 2012 02:43:19 +0000 Received: by pbbrq2 with SMTP id rq2so320791pbb.6 for ; Tue, 01 May 2012 19:42:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZeFCkLBflWp8bzk744ylNcAJZzmmVSaBFlzn8cT9KOg=; b=ATzX+HO4CZK8y8qYYEmaZ5QEFfKYwr/A7nGOV8XFBwjuU2CKy1aDnPfUPVS4ipevzM bqmQLyaV4Vm3gFRpPIK3rzh+MwlcuIil6v6JMUECNO2eodtAQ1pJsL92cA9ibTQ68jKt 686EkFrew+GsvtBJ8DDOXeTfJlHaCZu3TEIA48cyITNlJPPif/BD0FtZzxdAwfsbmKYe y/iGEk2/KY9C5QCxr+NalPHo/uMOwlrvFlPofQMfpu7aOWyAlxIFelsalN08RsHFkHVB So3l3qGCUay6xLkx37venwanxQsT6VqCLHiL/UU0NL2W1HVg/9pR7cF5LUmectwMmC6t wLIw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.239.33 with SMTP id vp1mr2121246pbc.146.1335926577863; Tue, 01 May 2012 19:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.48.41 with HTTP; Tue, 1 May 2012 19:42:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FA03536.3070101@apache.org> References:

<00be01cd261f$96374a60$c2a5df20$@acm.org> <1335890290.16969.19.camel@linux-yjtf.site>

<4FA03536.3070101@apache.org> Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 21:42:57 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Legal question about (re)licensing From: Norbert Thiebaud To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org, general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. =C2=A0Ditto = for >>> smaller ones, if there are questions/concerns. =C2=A0Remember, any >>> committer can veto a patch. =C2=A0So incoming patches without an ICLA n= eed >>> to meet a high bar to get into the code. =C2=A0My 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.