Hello fellow indians; ;) I think there is consensus that this is (at least) a gray area so I have the following proposal, which shouldn't get in the way of having this properly solved by legal but which I think should solve at least temporarily the issues that we have. It's actually very simple but who knows, maybe it's even acceptable as a general incubator policy at the ASF.
The ext_source in shall be divided, according to the categories of the licenses, into two directories in SVN, namely: ext_source_A ext_source_B - Ext_source_B shall have a prominent text note that warns users that the code there is made available only for builder convenience but that the code is in general not acceptable for inclusion in Apache source code releases. - It is understood that ext_source_B is a quarantine area. The idea is that the code we have there will only shrink with time. The code there can be updated for security reasons but in general no new code should be brought in without specific consensus (voting, checking with the PPMC, etc, but not lazy consensus). NOTE: Consensus for replacing standard OOo 3.4 functionality like the CoinMP solver code is a given (particularly as the licensing is being worked on) but we don't want this to be a loophole to bring in MPL'd code into AOO. Of course we still have to comply with the standard Apache policies concerning Category-B : "Code that is more substantial, more volatile, or not directly consumed at runtime in source form may only be distributed in binary form." but at least now it should be pretty clear and easy for everyone downloading the code from SVN where they can expect licensing issues. Pedro.