On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: > I'm sorry, Rob. Those files are toxic *for me*. I can't touch them in their > present state. I also don't want to read them in their present state until > the provenance and permissive licensing is dealt with. >
The files are covered by an SGA, checked in by an IBM employee covered by an iCLA and a CCLA. That is a triple assurance. If the only thing that is holding you back from being productive with these files is the copyright header, then I'll make an extra effort to see if I can help you there. I wouldn't want you to be blocked for the lack of this. But I really wish you would have mentioned this before the day we're proposing graduation. The contribution of Symphony was made months ago. > What is irrelevant for you is not irrelevant for me. And you're not my > lawyer. > > Offering to remove the files is bizarre. What is that, slash-dot bait? > No, I'm serious. If this is a blocking issue for anyone, I'm willing, able and happy to delete. I wouldn't want anyone concerned about "toxic files" in SVN. When Pedro had concerns with the Cat-b files in SVN he was praised for his "axe". I'm just offering to use mine as well. -Rob > - Dennis > > PS: I was asked, shortly after AOO incubation started, why I did not > contribute to LibreOffice. My response to that private question was that I > do contribute at a level that does not require my working with the > LibreOffice code. As a permissive-license open-source developer I have no > interest in possible contamination of my own work by knowledge of something > under LGPL, GPL, any other reciprocal license and in particular anything that > is proprietary. (I avoid the proprietary problem by not signing NDAs unless > they are reciprocal and it is something I have no difficulty keeping in > confidence.) > > [Full disclosure: To be accurate, I did contribute one (unused) patch to > LibreOffice and I also provided private review of a patch that has been > released in LibreOffice for reducing the information leakage and ease of > known-plaintext attacks on encrypted (save with Password) ODF files. I also > realize that I could privately rely on Symphony code, but I could not produce > anything based on it since I can't provide sanitary provenance. Sanitary > provenance is a standard I must satisfy for myself.] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 09:14 > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> wrote: >> Besides the concerns of the IPMC over toxic IPR in the SVN for an extended >> time, the greatest difficulty I see is that no one on the project can touch >> this code or work on merging any useful bits until the IPR cleanup happens. >> At the moment, it appears that the entire Symphony subdirectory on the OOO >> SVN is untouchable. >> > > Dennis, your use of inflammatory language like "toxic" is not helpful. > The only parts that are of interest to this project are the IBM > enhancements and new features, and these are all under ALv2 per the > SGA. The legacy OpenOffice.org stuff, with LGPL headers, is > irrelevant. > > What we have is contributed code that is sitting in a segregated tree, > entirely separate from the product code, awaiting IP clearance. This > is within the process. If you or any one else wants the process to go > faster I'd be happy to suggest ways to help. And as I said before, > I'm also happy to delete this tree, if anyone thinks it is a problem. > > -Rob > > >> - Dennis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] >> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 23:36 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS]: next step towards graduation >> >> >> On Oct 8, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orc...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >> [ ... ] >>>> I nose around in the Symphony code from time to time and I notice there is >>>> no reflection of the grant and availability under ALv2 has occurred. >>>> >>> >>> We were notified that the grant was received. >>> >>>> Is it expected that something be done about that? There are files that are >>>> >>>> - still under Sun LGPL license, >>>> - some that add an IBM License and copyright under private license >>>> - some that claim an IBM Copyright and provide no license whatsoever, >>>> although there is a notice concerning government use >>>> >>> >>> Yes, this needs to be cleaned up before any of this is part of a >>> release. But it is not a graduation issue. Remember, an SGA may come >>> from anywhere, at any time, before graduation or after graduation. >>> This is blessing, not a problem. But the code does need to be >>> reviewed and brought in line with policy before it can be part of a >>> release. >> >> It is still work that ought to be done sooner rather than later. And the >> header work should be done by someone from IBM. Who might that be? >> >> Whoever it is should be doing it already. There is no excuse to delay. >> >> BTW - Large software grants go through the incubator. TLPs do this. [1] >> >> I think that not clearing the Symphony grant might be a graduation problem >> for some on the IPMC. It will certainly be discussed. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html >> >> [ ... ] >> >
