On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 12:18 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. >> >> 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? > > I am with you Dennis, Oracle for OpenOffice and Adobe for Flex were much more > careful. In fact Adobe did not even release the until it had Gond through > full review. > > What gets me is the attitude of Rob as a representative of IBM. >
Rather than you trying to guess, I'd like to ensure that you actually understand my personal views on this: 1) When this podling started I had to listen to claims that IBM would never contribute to the project, that we were just here to take the community's code. 2) When I announced that we were going to contribute Symphony, I had to listen to all the claims that IBM would never do it 3) I then toiled for months to get the code through the labyrinthine processes at IBM to get it into a form where it could actually be contributed, a task for which I never received even a minor thanks from the community. 4) And then I had to deal with Infra for several weeks before time became available to get the source code dump in 5) Then I had to listen to claims that now IBM was going to force Symphony to replace OpenOffice, that we were just going to take over. 6) We had a discussion in the community about what to do with the Symphony code, and ultimately decided to do a "slow merge" approach, which means that the checked in Symphony tree will never be directly used in a release. 7) In all this time, no one has raised concerns on the files. Not when we contributed. Not when we released AOO. Not when I proposed graduation. Not when we voted on graduation. Not when we voted on a PMC. Not when we voted on a PMC Chair. But now today, in a thread regarding graduation, you and Dennis are now using inflammatory terms, claiming the Symphony contribution, a multi-year effort of dozens of developers and millions of dollars, is "toxic" and has "IP" and "provenance" issues. Yes, I'm pissed. And I'm not the only one you are insulting today. Really, if you think this code is at all inconvenient to you personally or to the project I will have no problems deleting it. No good deed goes unpunished. -Rob > I have nothing more to say here about it. > > Regards, > Dave > >> >> - 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 >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>
