Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On 07.06.2011 14:22, Mathias Bauer wrote: On 07.06.2011 13:00, Nóirín Plunkett wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mathias Bauermathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote: If there was still too much concern about that, I could work on an improved list from a technical perspective and provide this list in a few days. I don't claim to reach perfection, but the result should be much closer to what we need. Mathias, It seems to me like that list would be helpful to have. If it's not too much work, I think it would be great if you could put it together. OK. I hope to get it done until Thursday. In whatever time zone. :-) As it seems, it's more work to do than expected. I'm still at it. Regards, Mathias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On 08.06.2011 00:37, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Greg Steingst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM: Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite legwork, but it seems doable. I was assuming that the CWS's contributed to OOo were already covered under the JCA, Sun Contributor Agreement or Oracle Contributor Agreement, depending on the date: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment Or is that note the case? Anyone know? With the usual reservation that you should not trust what people who arent't legal practitioners tell you about licenses or copyright, you are basically right. Regards, Mathias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On 06/07/2011 06:08 PM, Andrew Rist wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. Now, the database with OOo is hsqldb, Java based, so assuming we want to run this on Apache Harmony, does the Java TCK becomes a test dependency of OOo? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Steve Loughran ste...@apache.org wrote: Now, the database with OOo is hsqldb, Java based, so assuming we want to run this on Apache Harmony, does the Java TCK becomes a test dependency of OOo? No - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On 07/06/2011 Andrew Rist wrote: We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories. As a longtime OpenOffice.org volunteer (mini-introduction: involved with the OpenOffice.org project since 2003, main contributions in QA, Localization and QA Tools, Italian Project Lead since 2005) I'm happy to see Oracle finally answering questions on public lists. May I ask for a last clarification on the code covered by the Oracle grant? Some observers, like the Document Foundation [1] and Bradley Kuhn [2], seem to imply that the grant will also turn some proprietary software (components exclusive to StarOffice - Oracle Open Office perhaps? Or Oracle Cloud Office?) into free software: is this the case or, as it seems from the provided file list, all the code covered by the grant is already available as free (LGPL3) software? [1] http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/ [2] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html Regards, Andrea Pescetti. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
I'll quote my earlier answer [1] on that: Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit at a later stage of the project. (acknowledged - that was several hundred messages ago) On 6/8/2011 1:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: May I ask for a last clarification on the code covered by the Oracle grant? Some observers, like the Document Foundation [1] and Bradley Kuhn [2], seem to imply that the grant will also turn some proprietary software (components exclusive to StarOffice - Oracle Open Office perhaps? Or Oracle Cloud Office?) into free software: is this the case or, as it seems from the provided file list, all the code covered by the grant is already available as free (LGPL3) software? [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Andrew Rist wrote: I'll quote my earlier answer [1] on that: Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit at a later stage of the project. (acknowledged - that was several hundred messages ago) Thanks for the confirmation. I had indeed read this message and all the several hundreds in between, but it seemed important enough to ask explicitly again, especially considering that those statements haven't been corrected and that the Oracle proprietary bits surely qualify for the clear provenance, so making them free software should not pose particular problems. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Hi, Le 7 juin 11 à 06:01, Ralph Goers a écrit : It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His summary ended with Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver something that is even close to OOo as it is now. As I've said before, I don't want to see the project start off with an extremely large amount of work to do just to get something working. There is a simple way to create a correct set of files : - download the OOODev mercurial bundle, - extract one milestone, - remove the metadatas and you should obtain a full tree - verify the tree is buildable This tree could be used to create a new repository, based on svn or whatever. What I propose is really not that difficult, and if you need volunteers, I can help. Note this method has some pros : - create the exact list of files is extremely easy, and lot of tools can be used in that purpose. - to verify what is missing is extremely easy too At the end, create a diff between the initial list provided by Oracle and the one we created, from a buildable tree. In later posts I see you got more files added to the list by Oracle and a list of more missing files from Simon. I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the point where those far more familiar with the code than I am can verify it is at a reasonable starting point before we vote on this. At the beginning, why didn't Apache Foundation ask Oracle to provide a full and buildable tree, and then remove what could cause problem ? I must be stupid, but I do not understand the logical ... Regards, Eric Bachard -- qɔᴉɹə Education Project: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Ralph Goers schreef: On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka c...@lippka.com wrote: While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations. I'll share my understanding. My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later. This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline. My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to include a standard ASF software grant. While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more, and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith. It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. To put this into perspective, if I remember correctly Christian's summary dealt with file lists and did not take file size into account. So that 50% in file count may represent a far bigger percentage of source code. The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle can't supply and that is very difficult to replace. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Simon Brouwer wrote: The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle can't supply and that is very difficult to replace. If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is yes. And another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass. All of that makes starting off from the hg repo appear desirable ... Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpq88WY4oiKs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Hi Thorsten, Am 07.06.2011 11:09, schrieb Thorsten Behrens: Simon Brouwer wrote: The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle can't supply and that is very difficult to replace. If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is yes. And another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass. All of that makes starting off from the hg repo appear desirable ... While I fully agree that the commit history is of value, I do not see the need to include them when switching to AL. IMHO it is perfectly legal for anyone to clone the currently available repositories and archive them and also make them available publicly. So those information will not be lost, this is the internet :-) This is not an argument against having the history, I'm perfectly fine with that solution also. But in this case my personal preference would be to start clean. Regards, Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Hi Thorsten, Thorsten Behrens schreef: Simon Brouwer wrote: The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle can't supply and that is very difficult to replace. If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is yes. Both? That was only one question, and Christian's mail doesn't answer it with yes. Although essential things are missing, it's not apparent that those are things Oracle doesn't have the copyright to. If you think otherwise, give examples please. -- Vriendelijke groet, Simon Brouwer -*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote: On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka c...@lippka.com wrote: While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations. I'll share my understanding. My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later. This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline. My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to include a standard ASF software grant. While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more, and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith. It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His summary ended with Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver something that is even close to OOo as it is now. As I've said before, I don't want to see the project start off with an extremely large amount of work to do just to get something working. In later posts I see you got more files added to the list by Oracle and a list of more missing files from Simon. I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the point where those far more familiar with the code than I am can verify it is at a reasonable starting point before we vote on this. I don't know what more I can say. The entire OOo source code is available for inspection. Heck, the LO source code is too, and some of the proposed committers will have access to the Lotus offering. What additional files should be requested? That's for the podling to decide. Should the ASF start from a snapshot or attempt to pull over the full version history? That's for the podling to decide. Clearly not all of the files in the above set are made available under terms that the ASF can make available under the terms of the Apache License. Should the ASF reach out to the authors, find alternatives, write new code in such instances? That's for the podling to decide. Why hasn't the podling gotten started? Because we haven't voted on it. At the present time there are 55 committers who would like to get started, and 8 mentors willing to help. There clearly are some people here who don't want to give these people an opportunity to do so. And there clearly are some people who do. From my perspective, I can't see saying no to letting people spend their time trying simply because they might fail. Ralph - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Mathias Bauer wrote: I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work out. Hi Mathias, hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to replace all non-Oracle-owned code). Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle (here we grant you the hg repo bundle) admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket. Surely asking for the latter would be favourable for Apache, and therefore something to at least try? Cheers, -- Thorsten pgpjuTs4uMZXZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mathias Bauer mathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote: If there was still too much concern about that, I could work on an improved list from a technical perspective and provide this list in a few days. I don't claim to reach perfection, but the result should be much closer to what we need. Mathias, It seems to me like that list would be helpful to have. If it's not too much work, I think it would be great if you could put it together. Thanks, Noirin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:06, Michael Stahl wrote: On 07/06/11 11:42, Christian Lippka wrote: Am 07.06.2011 11:09, schrieb Thorsten Behrens: If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is yes. And another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass. yes, the history is definitely valuable; in fact i sometimes am frustrated that it only starts in 2000 and misses out the first 10 years... Keep in mind that one can do both - keep all the history -but- at the same time ensure that releases done under the ASF its banner only contain code covered by the software grant. And that any code added since that software grant 'stake in the sand' point is covered by the normal CCLA agreement with an indivudal committer. Combine that with a bit of frugal oversight by the PMC (to spot accidental cut-and-paste from pre-watershed code) and one has the best of both worlds perhaps? Dw smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mathias Bauer mathias_ba...@gmx.netwrote: On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Mathias Bauer wrote: I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work out. Hi Mathias, hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to replace all non-Oracle-owned code). Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle (here we grant you the hg repo bundle) admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket. That's not possible as Oracle does not own the copyright for every file in the repository (example: dictionaries). You are both right. It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? My approach would be to start with the whole list of files in the repo, remove all things I know that are problematic, create a diff to the list provided so far and have a second look on this difference list for possible naughty bits. Everythings else (history etc.) can be sorted out later. Regards, Mathias
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On 07.06.2011 13:00, Nóirín Plunkett wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mathias Bauermathias_ba...@gmx.net wrote: If there was still too much concern about that, I could work on an improved list from a technical perspective and provide this list in a few days. I don't claim to reach perfection, but the result should be much closer to what we need. Mathias, It seems to me like that list would be helpful to have. If it's not too much work, I think it would be great if you could put it together. OK. I hope to get it done until Thursday. In whatever time zone. :-) Regards, Mathias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? At the Apache Software Foundation, all contributions are entirely voluntary. We do not seek commitments. What we have today is a standard software grant. That grant contains a list of files. You've seen the list of files. We know this list to be incomplete. Employees of Oracle are participating in the incubation. Those that do will be expected to sign the ICLA which requires them to determine if a CCLA is required and to obtain that too. I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. I will add that I won't be the one determining what files to request, that would be the incubating podling should it be set up. I will certainly help make any such requests end up with a positive outcome for all concerned. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the work-in-progress CWS[1] please? Thanks S. [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories. A. On 6/7/2011 10:14 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the work-in-progress CWS[1] please? Thanks S. [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Ristandrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Good to know, many thanks. S. On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories. A. On 6/7/2011 10:14 AM, Simon Phipps wrote: That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the work-in-progress CWS[1] please? Thanks S. [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Ristandrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite legwork, but it seems doable. On Jun 7, 2011 10:15 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the work-in-progress CWS[1] please? Thanks S. [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist andrew.r...@oracle.com wrote: It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo, taking into account licensing and ownership issues. This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation databases. I am following the discussions here closely, and I am collected all of the lists that are provided. In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to come up with an initial list of files, and so the list, which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list. As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is discussed in the podling documentation [3]. references: [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bb9a.7040...@oracle.com%3E [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3c4de9bd98.3050...@oracle.com%3E [3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote: It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask you to seek? I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Simon Phipps +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM: Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite legwork, but it seems doable. I was assuming that the CWS's contributed to OOo were already covered under the JCA, Sun Contributor Agreement or Oracle Contributor Agreement, depending on the date: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment Or is that note the case? Anyone know? -Rob - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM: Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite legwork, but it seems doable. I was assuming that the CWS's contributed to OOo were already covered under the JCA, Sun Contributor Agreement or Oracle Contributor Agreement, depending on the date: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment Or is that note the case? Anyone know? Anything contributed would definitely fall into that category, yes. The only possible exception would be work originating from Sun, which could potentially be using code from other sources that Sun had sourced but not yet got round to open sourcing. Sun had a rigorous process for ensuring all inbound code was tracked and cleared before use. Code in this condition would be capable of being open source licensed, so Oracle would be free to simply include it in the grant too. Net: I don't personally see any obstacles, apart from Oracle legal satisfying themselves that all the processes had, in fact, been followed. S.
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Am 06.06.2011 12:02, schrieb Christian Lohmaier [...] - Sam Ruby raw numbers: wc -l repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst 69076 repo.lst 39616 sorted_ooo.lst So even calling this seems to include the full repo and that even twice is either with malicious intent, or with no clue. Christian Lippka really should know better, but had stated this at least twice. Close to 3 files gone, who cares source seems complete.. I never said I did an analysis on the files. This would have made no sense since as an oracle employee I'm missing an unbiased view even so I'm on this list as an individual. My interest was just if this list contains additional modules not available at OOo which would have been an interesting FYI for others. My apologies if my understanding of seems is imperfect as I'm not a native speaker. At least I haven't stated it thrice, who knows what I could have sommoned :-) While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations. Regards, Christian Disclaimer: These are my opinions as an individual interested in the future of an open source office suite. I do not speak for my current employer. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka c...@lippka.com wrote: While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations. I'll share my understanding. My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later. This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline. My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to include a standard ASF software grant. While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more, and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith. It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka c...@lippka.com wrote: While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations. I'll share my understanding. My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later. This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline. My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to include a standard ASF software grant. While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more, and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith. It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent software grants. Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His summary ended with Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver something that is even close to OOo as it is now. As I've said before, I don't want to see the project start off with an extremely large amount of work to do just to get something working. In later posts I see you got more files added to the list by Oracle and a list of more missing files from Simon. I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the point where those far more familiar with the code than I am can verify it is at a reasonable starting point before we vote on this. Ralph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
