incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation
Date Tue, 09 Oct 2012 17:30:12 GMT
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry, Rob.  Those files are toxic *for me*.  I can't touch them in their present
state.  I also don't want to read them in their present state until the provenance and permissive
licensing is dealt with.
>

The files are covered by an SGA, checked in by an IBM employee covered
by an iCLA and a CCLA.  That is a triple assurance.   If the only
thing that is holding you back from being productive with these files
is the copyright header, then I'll make an extra effort to see if I
can help you there.  I wouldn't want you to be blocked for the lack of
this.    But I really wish you would have mentioned this before the
day we're proposing graduation.  The contribution of Symphony was made
months ago.

> What is irrelevant for you is not irrelevant for me.  And you're not my lawyer.
>
> Offering to remove the files is bizarre.  What is that, slash-dot bait?
>

No, I'm serious.  If this is a blocking issue for anyone, I'm willing,
able and happy to delete. I wouldn't want anyone concerned about
"toxic files" in SVN.  When Pedro had concerns with the Cat-b  files
in SVN he was praised for his "axe".  I'm just offering to use mine as
well.

-Rob


>  - Dennis
>
> PS: I was asked, shortly after AOO incubation started, why I did not contribute to LibreOffice.
 My response to that private question was that I do contribute at a level that does not require
my working with the LibreOffice code.  As a permissive-license open-source developer I have
no interest in possible contamination of my own work by knowledge of something under LGPL,
GPL, any other reciprocal license and in particular anything that is proprietary.  (I avoid
the proprietary problem by not signing NDAs unless they are reciprocal and it is something
I have no difficulty keeping in confidence.)
>
> [Full disclosure: To be accurate, I did contribute one (unused) patch to LibreOffice
and I also provided private review of a patch that has been released in LibreOffice for reducing
the information leakage and ease of known-plaintext attacks on encrypted (save with Password)
ODF files.  I also realize that I could privately rely on Symphony code, but I could not produce
anything based on it since I can't provide sanitary provenance.  Sanitary provenance is a
standard I must satisfy for myself.]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 09:14
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
>> Besides the concerns of the IPMC over toxic IPR in the SVN for an extended time,
the greatest difficulty I see is that no one on the project can touch this code or work on
merging any useful bits until the IPR cleanup happens.  At the moment, it appears that the
entire Symphony subdirectory on the OOO SVN is untouchable.
>>
>
> Dennis, your use of inflammatory language like "toxic" is not helpful.
>   The only parts that are of interest to this project are the IBM
> enhancements and new features, and these are all under ALv2 per the
> SGA.  The legacy OpenOffice.org stuff, with LGPL headers, is
> irrelevant.
>
> What we have is contributed code that is sitting in a segregated tree,
> entirely separate from the product code, awaiting IP clearance.  This
> is within the process.  If you or any one else wants the process to go
> faster I'd be happy to suggest ways to help.   And as I said before,
> I'm also happy to delete this tree, if anyone thinks it is a problem.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>>  - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 23:36
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation
>>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org>
wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>>> 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 are
>>>>
>>>>  - 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?
>>
>> Whoever it is should be doing it already. There is no excuse to delay.
>>
>> BTW - Large software grants go through the incubator. TLPs do this. [1]
>>
>> I think that not clearing the Symphony grant might be a graduation problem for some
on the IPMC. It will certainly be discussed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>

Mime
View raw message