openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <>
Subject RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to the Apache license
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:52:29 GMT
Well... now that I think about it ...

The linux header (which is actually an GNU iconv header),
can probably be dealt without too. The MIT licensed header
in XFree86 is not on X.Org anymore so they did something
about it.

Is OOo on a opengrok anywhere? It would be good to see where
such headers are used.


--- On Wed, 9/28/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:

> From: Dennis E. Hamilton <>
> Subject: RE: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff which is not conform to
the Apache license
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 2:40 PM
> If you mean ODMA.h, I don't believe
> there is any dependency on it and you should just get rid of
> it.
> If you need to deal with it as third-party code, I can get
> you a version with a BSD-variant license that applies,
> although the header itself has not been touched.  AIIM
> approved the license some time ago.
> I think the simple solution is to remove the ODMA.h header
> and delete the dialog about offering ODMA selections on Open
> ... first or not (if that is even present in current
> builds).  Post the patch on removing
> ODMA.h and I'll be happy to commit it [;<).
>  - Dennis
> In fact, ODMA.h is not a file anyone would use to bind to
> the ODMA32.dll, because then ODMA32.dll is required to be on
> the system.  The whole idea is that ODMA32.dll and the
> present of a DMS that is registered to work with
> is done by discovery, and these are the wrong
> headers and the wrong protocol for that.  
> If someone wants to figure out a decent binding for ODMA32
> (there is no ODMA64 at this time) in the future, I can help
> with that.  I even have better headers and sample code
> for going through the discovery process.  I can even
> Apache License those [;<).  (Duhh.  I just
> realized that.)
> However, I suspect that any further efforts at DMS and
> Content Management systems would be by tightening the WebDAV
> integration and also looking into CMIS as the most promising
> low-hanging fruit for content-management integration.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann []
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 06:05
> To:
> Subject: my next (tiny) steps - clean up regarding stuff
> which is not conform to the Apache license
> Hi,
> I will now join the folks who are working on the clean up
> regarding 
> non-Apache license conform stuff.
> Looking at the wiki - - 
> provides some low-hanging fruits for me for a start.
> I will create patches for the following Apache license
> problems:
> - UnixODBC
> - dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
> - A header from GNU c library
> - ODMA
> Any objections to execute these already proposed and marked
> as solved 
> issues?
> Best regards, Oliver.

View raw message