On Thursday, November 24, 2011, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > I have already lost much time on this, but I will give > this a last attempt. > > --- On Thu, 11/24/11, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Maybe some are making an unstated and unwarranted >> assumption that our >> source release will contain 100% of what is in SVN? >> That would >> explain much of the confusion I am hearing. >> > > That is exactly *your* point of confusion here. One > of our mentors stated we cannot have infringing code > in SVN at the time we graduate. (You had this pretty > wrong with dmake which is GPL but it also applies to > MPL). I really think you should add links to the mail > archive in the Wiki, BTW. >
That explains your confusion then. We are working on a release. We are not facing an immediate graduation vote. But we are facing the shutdown of Oracle servers. So in the near term the amount of MPL code in SVN will increase not decrease, eg, ext-src. > I don't see why you want to carry code that will not > be in our code release but IP clearance is for > everything in SVN. This is the surest and easiest way forward. If you want to volunteer to implement an alternative approach then feel free to make a proposal for what you want to do. > >> > I'd be very careful before assuming being discussed >> here qualifies for that exception is being discussed >> here. I'm with Pedro on the prudence side.) >> > >> > > Now there are two issues that have got mixed up in this > thread: > > How we will support/use hunspell but likely also nss, > mozilla, rhino and saxon. Officially We can use the > binaries, and no one argues about that. I had doubts > about an optional script (configure) that will download > the sources, patches them and produces such binaries. > I saw this as a way to circumvent the restrictions on > copylefted code but I have since then agreed that this > can be something reasonable as long as this support is > optional (it is) and the code doesn't touch SVN (it > doesn't). On the long run I think there is also consensus > that we want replacements for these. > > The other issue is what to do about dictionaries. You > have been implying we can carry MPL code and by extension > dictionaries in SVN and that is simply false. > > AFAICT there are no more infringing MPL headers or code, > in SVN, are there? (I recall I removed nssrenam.h uglily > but I did it) > >> These questions were already raised, discussed and resolved >> many weeks ago. >> > > And these questions will continue to be raised, discussed, > and resolved many times until we graduate. > > Part of what I did in my previous job was prevent errors > from happening and that is what I do here now, but I would > really prefer to spend more time on the code. > > Pedro. >
