On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:24, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > On 5 Jun 2011, at 19:15, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 14:05, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> >> wrote: >>> On 6/5/2011 10:43 AM, Ralph Goers wrote: >... >>>> What I am still waiting to hear on are: >>>> 1. The amount of code in the project that the grant didn't give to us >>>> under the Apache License. >>> >>> List published by Sam, and Christian suggests this reflects the OOo repo... >>> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/openoffice.files.txt >>> Actually tearing into that repo for files differently-copyrighted might >>> be a task for RAT :) >> >> I doubt that you'll find anything "differently-copyrighted" in that >> list. My understanding is that Oracle created the list with something >> like "grep '(C) Oracle'" :-) >> >> I'm more interested in the list of files from the Hg repository that >> are NOT in that list. I gotta believe it is non-zero, so what are >> they, and how much of a problem will that be? > > I've been discussing this privately with some folk, and while we've not done > an exhaustive analysis between us we're fairly sure that list doesn't include > any of the (numerous) work-in-progress branches that are not merged into the > actual release. Is it crucial to get a comprehensive list before the podlet > is established, or can ASF still sort this out with Oracle in incubation?
No, we don't need the comprehensive list to start. I believe the intent is to begin with that list of files and their history, and get that loaded into svn.apache.org. Then get that sucker up and building. All of those files have been donated to us, so they are all usable under ALv2 (ie. no worries about stripping out LGPL stuffs). There are dependencies on third-party libraries that will need to be examined and dealt with [during incubation]. The ASF allows dependencies on (say) LGPL libraries *only* when it is optional. The product must be able to function without the LGPL'd library. That allows all downstream consumers to acquire our software, believing it is ALv2, and not be surprised when they must also package up and rely on less permissive licenses. These "hard" dependencies are okay while in the incubator, but a release cannot be made until they've been fixed. A release will need to be made before OOo can graduate[1]. After all that, then we can go back to Oracle and make specific requests for the branches where Oracle owns the copyright. I believe Andrew already stated that moving over the core is primary, and then we can mop up later with extensions and whatnot. Cheers, -g [1] as Joe noted, Subversion was a special case and never made a release while in the Incubator; that was simply because people were confident that svn would have no problems doing so, so an education and a demonstration was not mandated --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
