On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@suse.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: >> On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@suse.com> wrote: >> > 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend >> > beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of >> > them ? >> >> The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, > ... >> The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files >> you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those >> too. > > Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern. > >> I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my >> guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history >> too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant >> covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. > > Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied > to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics > went on there) ? >
This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching for "svn import". >> The signed documents are private because they contain private contact >> details, however the text is at > > Fair enough. > >> If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on >> the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to >> post to legal-disc...@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be >> happy to respond. > > I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the > archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser). > > Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I > just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only > important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the > license headers. > > As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that > Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is > left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an > unclear state. > > In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally > licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based > (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the > process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so, > how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on > what exact versions of what are granted ]. > > Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the > license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS' > that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining > the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be > having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of > them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant > by eg. the tooltypes changes. > > IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from > Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like: > > "all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial > repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2" > > or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new > files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. > Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. > > On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: >> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside >> from aw080? > > I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list, > there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - > everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. > > I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand > it in more detail. > I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any official statement on code that is not in a release. -Rob > Thanks, > > Michael. > > -- > michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot >
