On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Pedro Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com> wrote:
> Hi; > > Is there an updated SGA already? > good question and where can we find it? Juergen > > I think there will likely be a set of files of uncertain license > that we should move to apache-extras. I am refering specifically > to the dictionaries: Oracle might have property over some but not > all. I propose we rescue myspell in apache-extras and put the > dictionaries there to keep it as an alternative. I have no idea > where to get MySpell though. > > While here, if there's still interest in maintaining the Hg > history, bitbucket.org seems to be a nice alternative: it's > rather specialized in Mercurial. > > Cheers, > > Pedro. > > > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 20:27:05 -0400, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> If you haven't looked it closely, it is probably worth a few minutes >> of your time to review our incubation status page, especially the >> items under "Copyright" and "Verify Distribution Rights". It lists >> the things we need to do, including: >> >> -- Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the >> ASF been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the >> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. >> >> -- Check and make sure that the files that have been donated have been >> updated to reflect the new ASF copyright. >> >> -- Check and make sure that for all code included with the >> distribution that is not under the Apache license, we have the right >> to combine with Apache-licensed code and redistribute. >> >> -- Check and make sure that all source code distributed by the project >> is covered by one or more of the following approved licenses: Apache, >> BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C, MPL 1.1, or something with essentially >> the same terms. >> >> Some of this is already going on, but it is hard to get a sense of who >> is doing what and how much progress we have made. I wonder if we can >> agree to a more systematic approach? This will make it easier to see >> the progress we're making and it will also make it easier for others >> to help. >> >> Suggestions: >> >> 1) We need to get all files needed for the build into SVN. Right now >> there are some that are copied down from the OpenOffice.org website >> during the build's bootstrap process. Until we get the files all in >> one place it is hard to get a comprehensive view of our dependencies. >> >> 2) Continue the CWS integrations. Along with 1) this ensures that all >> the code we need for the release is in SVN. >> >> 3) Files that Oracle include in their SGA need to have the Apache >> license header inserted and the Sun/Oracle copyright migrated to the >> NOTICE file. Apache RAT (Release Audit Tool) [2] can be used to >> automate parts of this. >> >> 4) Once the SGA files have the Apache headers, then we can make >> regular use of RAT to report on files that are lacking an Apache >> header. Such files might be in one of the following categories: >> >> a) Files that Oracle owns the copyright on and which should be >> included in an amended SGA >> >> b) Files that have a compatible OSS license which we are permitted to >> use. This might require that we add a mention of it to the NOTICE >> file. >> >> c) Files that have an incompatible OSS license. These need to be >> removed/replaced. >> >> d) Files that have an OSS license that has not yet been >> reviewed/categorized by Apache legal affairs. In that case we need to >> bring it to their attention. >> >> e) (Hypothetically) files that are not under an OSS license at all. >> E.g., a Microsoft header file. These must be removed. >> >> 5) We should to track the resolution of each file, and do this >> publicly. The audit trail is important. Some ways we could do this >> might be: >> >> a) Track this in SVN properties. So set ip:sga for the SGA files, >> ip:mit for files that are MIT licensed, etc. This should be reflected >> in headers as well, but this is not always possible. For example, we >> might have binary files where we cannot add headers, or cases where >> the OSS files do not have headers, but where we can prove their >> provenance via other means. >> >> b) Track this is a spreadsheet, one row per file. >> >> c) Track this is an text log file checked in SVN >> >> d) Track this in an annotated script that runs RAT, where the >> annotations document the reason for cases where we tell it to ignore a >> file or directory. >> >> 6) Iterate until we have a clean RAT report. >> >> 7) Goal should be for anyone today to be able to see what work remains >> for IP clearance, as well as for someone 5 years from now to be able >> to tell what we did. Tracking this on the community wiki is probably >> not good enough, since we've previously talked about dropping that >> wiki and going to MWiki. >> >> >> -Rob >> >> >> [1] >> http://incubator.apache.org/**projects/openofficeorg.html<http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html> >> >> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/**rat/ <http://incubator.apache.org/rat/> >> > >
