As you know, originally there were essentially 2 different options for us during this incubation when dealing with the existing codebase: 1) Get the code donated, granted, however you want to call it. Unfortunately nobody could be found to even decide on this issue for all sorts of reasons that are not very positive but recognizable when original developers stop working on the codebase (fired, left, ...). 2) Perform a substantial amount of changes to the original codebase. In retrospect this was something that needed to be done anyway since the codebase is around 20 years old. But essentially that is the route that was taken. It's actually pretty much all we've been doing: writing new tools, GUI, re-writing code, replacing code, changing APIs and so on.
This process was reviewed and obviously completed as part of our acceptance into the incubation process. It involved not hundreds but thousands of files Justin. Nothing survived the refactoring onslaught but obviously bits and pieces will be recognizable. It is what it is. Now that being said, we do have permissions from a few developers regarding the inclusion of their code. We'll see about getting a more formal SGA there. On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:24 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Understood. I'll remove the code. It's probably better to use a parser > > library from a project like Apache Calcite anyway. > > I think you may have misunderstood. Sure removing the code is one option, > bull all code from that repo would need to be removed not just that one > file. My understanding is there a lot of other files that have been > transferred across, this applies if they have been altered as well. We’re > probably talking 100’s of files here? Why would getting a software grant be > an issue? > > Thanks, > Justin
