I know there's a lot of plates spinning as cutover from graduation occurs. It seems to me this is not an insignificant problem: 1. People who see the IP-encumbered code on the AOO SVN are not privy to the SGA. All they have to go by are the notices that they see there.
2. There are limitations on who is empowered to do anything about that. 3. To make the cleanup incremental and conditional on some future events seems completely inconsistent with the SGA, which has no strings attached. In order for volunteers to choose to work on this code, even to repair difficulties building it and to exercise interesting components for potential integration in AOO, is problematic since using the current code and committing changes to it leads to IP provenance issues. The community should not be confronted by such a sustained ambiguity. Rob, can you help? I am certain that great effort and good will was extended in making the Symphony contribution. It will be a shame that the delivery remains incomplete in this way. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 11:01 To: ooo-...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't think deleting the files of the Symphony contribution is a > constructive step. > You overstate things. There is no IPR issue here. The IPR is set by the SGA. The question is about updating headers, which neither adds nor subtracts any rights anyone has with respect to these files. It is documentation work that should be done, yes. But let's not make it something it is not. > Cleaning up the IPR will work for everyone. > And indeed it will be done, per the process, before this code is included in a release. > When can the ASF expect the letter from IBM that you have offered to request? > When I know I'll post that info. -Rob [ ... ]
