Please note that we are doing both simultaneously to avoid breaking the build.
We do have to update the task list. There are some uncommitted advances (libegg, ucpp) and some WIP (nss), but there are still some binaries used in the windows build and the glibc stubs. Otherwise, we are doing pretty well and its a matter of hoping Oracle wont leave additional license holes in the SGA. Pedro. --- On Mon, 10/24/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to propose the following development > milestones on our way to the first AOO release: > > - "IP cleared" milestone > For this milestone we should remove all 3rd party > components which are not compliant to Apache's "Third-Party > Licensing Policy" [1]. All license headers in the source > code files should be updated according to Oracle's SGA. > Additionally, we may update certain information in the > product in order to reflect that the product is now coming > from Apache (e.g. the splash screen, the about dialog, > ...). > Then the IP review required by Apache could be performed in > order to meet the corresponding requirements for our first > release. > This milestone would result in an OpenOffice.org missing a > lot of important features, but this milestone would be the > basis regarding Apache's IP rules. This milestone could be > released according to the Apache rules. > > - "features back" milestone > For this milestone we should work on bringing back the > features which are lost in the previous milestone. I do not > think that we have to bring back every feature for a first > release. Thus, we would have got the possibility to work on > the features which are of most interest. At some point we > could create a "release candidate" and start working on > stabilizing it for a first release, if we think that the > "must have" features are back. > > > In order to coordinate efforts and to avoid duplicate work > I propose to use the IP clearance wiki page [2]. > The basis for its content is more or less the Apache > Migration wiki page [3]. Some additional information has > been collected on certain 3rd party components. Also > priorities have been assigned. But its content is not > "nailed in stone". It currently reflects more or less the > input and opionions of the editing contributors to these IP > clearance issues. Thus, it would be a living document to > reflect our knowlegde about these IP clearance issues. It > would also document our efforts and our decisions regarding > these efforts. > > > Any remarks/comments/improvements/adjustments? > Any objections to follow such plan for our first release? > > > Best regards, Oliver. > > P.S.: I will be out-of-office for the rest of the week. > Thus, I will probably not reply to your input regarding my > proposal this week - please excuse. > > References: > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance > [3] http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration >
