--- On Thu, 11/24/11, Mathias Bauer <mathias_ba...@gmx.net> wrote:
> From: Mathias Bauer <mathias_ba...@gmx.net> > Subject: Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?) > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Date: Thursday, November 24, 2011, 5:59 PM > Am 24.11.2011 22:43, schrieb Pedro > Giffuni: > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > As I see it the situation wrt. to MPL code in our svn repo > is unclear. I > asked about that several times, but noone replied. So > obviously noone has the answer now. > We also have the OFL (fonts) issue. I think the legal people are too busy: opening a JIRA issue seems to be the way to go. > I agree with you that keeping MPL code in our repo might be > wrong. But > OTOH investing time into throwing it out now and > discovering later on > that this wasn't necessary isn't a nice perspective > either. > It's not to much trouble to revert, as I found out with the Crystal icons ;-). But yes, you are right: we have to find out exactly how we are replacing them before we throw them out. > We don't plan to graduate tomorrow, so this leaves us time > to check this important point more carefully. In the > meantime IMHO we don't create a problem if we keep the > MPL sources in svn for now and only make sure > that the process that creates a source release does not > include them. We still can remove them, for the time > being we need to identify them and > think about possible alternatives. > I have no hurry ... really. Pedro.
