On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM, 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. > do you mean to check in the files under ext_source into svn and remove it later on when we have cleaned up the code. Or do you mean to put it somehwere on apache extras? I would prefer to save these binary files under apache extra if possible. > > 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. > talked about it yes but did we reached a final decision? The migrated wiki is available under http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki and can be used. Do we want to continue with this wiki now? It's still not clear for me at the moment. But we need a place to document the IP clearance and under http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration we have already some information. Juergen > > > -Rob > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html > > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/rat/ >
