openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Meeks <>
Subject CWS licensing / summary ...
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 11:07:36 GMT
Hi Andrew / Ross,

	Lets try to get to the bottom of this.

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> If anyone on this list believes a *specific* CWS is valuable as the
> project as it moves forwards then here is what to do...
> Go to our repository and look to see if it is already there (Dave gave
> an example in this thread).

	Right - Dave kindly pointed at this repository:


	And the commit log, which shows Oracle owned code released under the
LGPLv3, for which there is (apparently) no grant, with IBM code layered
top of it, having AL2 headers. That seems anomalous to me.

	I asked for clarity on the licensing of that code -not- to obstruct it
in any way (as I said, I think it's important), but as an example to
better understand the process of including code from Oracle that is
apparently not covered by the SGA. Norbert pointed out that this is not
an academic consideration as of today.

	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 ?

> 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 ?

	Why do I spend my time asking such questions ? is it merely to annoy ?
certainly not, and I'm sorry if it comes over that way.

	I am interested in re-basing the LibreOffice project on something based
on this AL2 codebase. Having a small number of branches (CWS) also
available under AL2 would (probably) help that process - I havn't
finished my analysis to find out which, but given the general latency of
these discussions I thought it wise to inquire ahead of time about *how
that process works*.

	I am happy to put work into identifying those CWS' extracting them as
patches, etc. however - in order to engage constructively, and in an
un-ambiguous way (ie. one that cannot be portrayed as support for this
incubator project) - I need to know about the process here.

	When I read Rob's mail:

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 14:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> When a committer merges that branch into the trunk and we include it
> in an RC, then we'll need to take a closer look.  But neither of these
> have occurred.
> But interesting questions, for another day.

	Dismissing the issue, no doubt he is busy, and I read yours:

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> This is how an ASF project works, everyone is contribute.
> I'm looking forward to seeing some new contributors emerge.

	I hear and conclude two things:

	1. that you are utterly uninterested in helping us re-base


	2. that any attempt for us to engage constructively to
	   identify and move code forwards ourselves -will-
	   -inevitably- require us to become a 'contributor' and
	   suffer from have our intentions widely mis-represented
	   both publicly and privately.

	Probably I mis-hear; if not it would be good to clarify that.



--  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

View raw message