openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: CWS licensing / summary ...
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 11:51:59 GMT
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Michael Meeks <> wrote:
> 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:
> URL:
>        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 ?

It is common for podlings to have code in a variety of licenses and
for that to be reviewed and brought into conformance with Apache
licensing policy as it moves towards release and as the podling moves
toward graduation.   In fact that is one of the core purposes of

>> 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.

Indeed.  I don't know if you noticed, but we're in the middle of
putting out our AOO 3.4 release.  This is a big deal here, and our
volunteers are very busy with launch-related activities.  Although I
cannot speak for everyone, my guess is that your hypothetical will not
get much attention from project volunteers for a couple of weeks.

>        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
>        and/or
>        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.

I certainly don't want you to suffer for being thought of as
contributing to Apache OpenOffice.  But I should warn you in advance
that many consider constructive comments on the mailing list to be a
form of contribution.  So you may want to check with a doctor.  You
may already be a contributor.

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

I think it is merely a matter of current volunteer priorities due to
immediate-term urgent project activities related to the AOO 3.4
launch.  If you don't get a clearer response, I'd recommend trying
again in a couple of weeks.


>        Thanks,
>                Michael.
> --
>  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

View raw message