incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2012 15:57:14 GMT

Yes, please arrange to have that permission provided to the ASF, so that anyone ASF designates
can make the changes.
I suspect that will come to the [P]PMC to be accountable for its accomplishment.

It would be helpful if the permission allows removal of the IBM Copyright notice or some other
simplification that removes the limitations in the current notice.  Specifying any notice
that IBM requires for acknowledging the presence of code contributed by IBM would be useful.

 - Dennis


I don't allow myself to get very deep into code that does not have permissive licenses, but
I can see from looking at notices in the Symphony contribution that the task will be an interesting
one.  Apart from code that is customized to Symphony, there is a significant quantity of Sun
LGPLed material that duplicates what may be since-maintained code already in AOOi and under
ALv2.  This part of the scrubbing will be an interesting challenge when the corresponding
file in AOO is more-recent and contains changes not in the Symphony version. 

This text file lays it out quite clearly:


If the idea is to keep the Symphony branch buildable or at least to have the improvements
in Symphony still functional, there has to be some degree of replacement of Symphony code
with the corresponding code on ooo/trunk or at least one of the stable ooo/tags/AOO34x.  That
takes care of the LGPL bits.  If there is also code originating in a CWS that is not integrated
into the AOO SVN, that will need to be dealt with too.  Finally, dealing with the additional
IBM Copyright notices and changes where there is no substitute in AOO ALv2 code should proceed
in the usual manner of SGA IPR cleanup.  Then determining merges into AOO can proceed.

This is a significant undertaking that would have also been required if AOO were rebased on
Symphony, rather than the course the project has taken.  I think it is further evidence for
the prudence of the chosen course, which did not disrupt a steady progression of AOO[i] releases.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 05:57
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 3:56 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <>
>>>>> The proposed PMC chair is not an officer of the PPMC.  The PPMC has no
>>>>> I suppose the updated graduation resolution would need to be balloted
here.  Then the IPMC can vote on it on their list for graduation.
>>>>> Also, all of the things that a PPMC is supposed to have been done need
to be checked off somewhere - on the podling status page, I expect.
>>>>> Meanwhile ...
>>>>> Different question.
>>>>> I nose around in the Symphony code from time to time and I notice there
is no reflection of the grant and availability under ALv2 has occurred.
>>>> We were notified that the grant was received.
>>>>> Is it expected that something be done about that?  There are files that
>>>>> - still under Sun LGPL license,
>>>>> - some that add an IBM License and copyright under private license
>>>>> - some that claim an IBM Copyright and provide no license whatsoever,
>>>>>   although there is a notice concerning government use
>>>> Yes, this needs to be cleaned up before any of this is part of a
>>>> release.  But it is not a graduation issue.  Remember, an SGA may come
>>>> from anywhere, at any time, before graduation or after graduation.
>>>> This is blessing, not a problem.  But the code does need to be
>>>> reviewed and brought in line with policy before it can be part of a
>>>> release.
>>> It is still work that ought to be done sooner rather than later. And the header
work should be done by someone from IBM. Who might that be?
>> If you recall we had a discussion a while ago on what to do with the
>> Symphony code.  One proposal was to adopt it as the new trunk and move
>> quickly to releasing it.  Another was to merge it into the trunk, a
>> much slower process.  The consensus was to do the slow merge.  So the
>> Symphony SGA did not impact the AOO 3.4.0 or AOO 3.4.1 releases.  But
>> it will impact future releases beyond any 3.4.x maintenance release.
>> So, we'll need to take care of the IP Clearance as part of the next
>> major release.  Where in that cycle it is done is debatable.  But
>> certainly the RAT scans will ensure we don't release any code with
>> incorrect headers.  And we should add an explicit check list item for
>> the next release that go through the other IP Clearance items.
>>> Whoever it is should be doing it already. There is no excuse to delay.
>> If you feel this is something you really want to work on right now I'm
>> sure we can arrange to give you the needed written permission so you
>> can update the headers.
> No, even if I had the time (which I do not) I have NO RIGHTs to change IBM's corporate
IP (even with the grant.) This IP clearance must be done by someone who is an employee for
IBM. There are plenty of those people in the project.


"1. If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included
in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:

    1. remove such notices, or
    2. move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable
project release, or
    3. provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or
relocation of the notices."

I'd be happy to arrange such written permission via 3 above if this is
an issue for anyone.  I wouldn't want anyone to feel blocked by lack
of such explicit permission.

> This is completely analogous to Andrew Rist changing the headers for the Oracle grant.
>>> BTW - Large software grants go through the incubator. TLPs do this. [1]
>> Right.  And that processes is explicitly not for podlings.
> If we graduate without this then I would propose it.
>>> I think that not clearing the Symphony grant might be a graduation problem for
some on the IPMC. It will certainly be discussed.
>> I'd be happy to delete that code from SVN if the IPMC has problems with it.
> And then the re-grant may require it.

So long as the SGA still covers the contributed files we should be OK.
 Remember, the SGA comes before the check-in.

So it might make sense to delete the files from SVN, clean up the
headers, and then check them in again, if anyone thinks this is a
blocking issue.  It simply disentangles two unrelated issues if anyone
has difficulties separating them.

> Keep in mind I don't think this is a blocker, but others may.

There will probably be a lot of angst in the IPMC discussion in
general.   Probably best to wait to see what the full set of issues
are and then discuss.


> Regards,
> Dave
>> Regards,
>> -Rob
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> [1]
>>>> -Rob
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: J├╝rgen Schmidt []
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 04:45
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> we made good progress towards graduation and I would like to discuss
>>>>> next steps.
>>>>> - we have selected the initial PMC roster
>>>>> - we have selected a PMC chair (vote finished, result summary out
>>>>> standing but we have a clear vote for Andrea Pescetti)
>>>>> - graduation resolution already updated with PMC roster and preliminary
>>>>> with the PMC chair
>>>>> Next steps to reach potentially the October board meeting:
>>>>> - start IPMC vote, who will trigger this? Should it or have it be
>>>>> triggered by the new PMC chair?
>>>>> I hope we can start this IPMC vote on Tuesday or Wednesday latest.
>>>>> Anything else we need?
>>>>> Juergen

View raw message