Re: CWS licensing query ...
A small number of people have approached me offlist, as a mentor, with concerns that the PPMC might be missing important CWSs. As a mentor I want to make it clear I have *no* opinion on the technical aspect of this project and the communications have not included any specific requests. Personally I feel the message in my text below has already been communicated. However, since I have offlist communications I will speak onlist in reply and thus make this opinion explicit. If anyone on this list believes a *specific* CWS is valuable as the project as it moves forwards then here is what to do... Go to our repository and look to see if it is already there (Dave gave an example in this thread). Remember, as Rob and Pedro point out absence from the 3.4 release does not mean absence from our repositories so please check this first. If it is not there please check our mail archives, as Rob suggests, to see if the CWS was not included for good reason (if it was not explicitly discussed it may have been missed). If you still believe it is being missed (or you have new input to the discussion) post in a *new* thread saying I believe XYZ is important, how do I go about ensuring the code lands here. In that thread build consensus that the code is needed and seek guidance on how to get it. Then do the work and bring the code over. This is how an ASF project works. There are some things you won't be able to do but you will find that doing the parts you are able to do will help ensure someone is willing to step forward to do the rest of the work. If you don't have the time to do the work feel free to raise an issue on the issue tracker. Hopefully someone with more time and similar views will be available to do the work. But we promise nothing, we are all volunteers here. The only way to guarantee results is to do it yourself. This is how an ASF project works, everyone is welcome.to contribute. Valuable contributions include making *specific* requests via the issue tracker, even more valuable is doing the work to close the issue. To close. let me repeat that as a mentor (which is why I've been contacted offlist) I believe the original question has been answered here and guidance has already been provided on how to identify and fill any *specific* holes an individual might see. I'm looking forward to seeing some new contributors emerge. Ross -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com On 1 May 2012 21:22, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: On 05/01/12 12:07, Michael Meeks wrote: ... 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. Of course we don't release CWSs at all, those would have to find their way into working code first. 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 understand you have been cautious, http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-October/019057.html and that's really good. I can see we will not be adopting them all. I think, for example, part of the accessibility stuff may be obsoleted by IBM's code, so if you really want to relicense all your code it may be easier to revert that and sync at a later time with AOO (good thing you are using git). I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. We have no plan. For 3.4, it's too late but please do provide a list of the CWSs you are using in LibreOffice with a short description and we will eventually see what we can provide in future AOO releases. Of course, if you sign an iCLA you can help things go faster :). Pedro. -- Ross Gardler (@rgardler) Programme Leader (Open Development) OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: CWS licensing query ...
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) ? 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. Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
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
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On May 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: 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. I think he is asking about this: URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080 Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 Revision: 1328172 Node Kind: directory Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: alg Last Changed Rev: 1327856 Last
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On May 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: 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. I think he is asking about this: URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080 OK. So this code is not in a release. So it has not been formally reviewed or voted on. When a committer merges that branch into the trunk and we include it
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On 05/01/12 12:07, Michael Meeks wrote: ... 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. Of course we don't release CWSs at all, those would have to find their way into working code first. 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 understand you have been cautious, http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-October/019057.html and that's really good. I can see we will not be adopting them all. I think, for example, part of the accessibility stuff may be obsoleted by IBM's code, so if you really want to relicense all your code it may be easier to revert that and sync at a later time with AOO (good thing you are using git). I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand it in more detail. We have no plan. For 3.4, it's too late but please do provide a list of the CWSs you are using in LibreOffice with a short description and we will eventually see what we can provide in future AOO releases. Of course, if you sign an iCLA you can help things go faster :). Pedro.
CWS licensing query ...
Hi there, Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child Workspaces (branches in Mercurial). It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the AL2, would also be available under the AL2. Is that the case ? reading: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html I see: The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th, 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection by Apache Members. The list of files covered by each of these grants, were extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_ Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of questions: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Hi Michael, On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi there, Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child Workspaces (branches in Mercurial). It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the AL2, would also be available under the AL2. Is that the case ? reading: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html I see: The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th, 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection by Apache Members. The list of files covered by each of these grants, were extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_ Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of questions: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. Good questions. I can partially answer: Members only refers to an Apache Software Foundation Members private area. Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080. Armin has been working on aw080 in a branch here at AOO: incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080 I know that people have made sure they have copies of mercurial. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! Maybe search the archives for aw080? This is the help I can provide perhaps others will answer further. Regards, Dave Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Michael Meeks michael.me...@suse.com wrote: Hi there, Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child Workspaces (branches in Mercurial). It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the AL2, would also be available under the AL2. I'm glad to hear that you are supportive of the Apache license and see its benefits. Is that the case ? reading: https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html I see: The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th, 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection by Apache Members. The list of files covered by each of these grants, were extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_ Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of questions: 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of them ? 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. The SGA is schedule B of the CCLA. You can read it here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt But something to remember is that an SGA is not the only way code can get under the Apache license. Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside from aw080? Regards, -Rob Thanks, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
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, unmodified. The source text can be found at http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt 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. 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. 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ? (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only' restriction that is presumed. The signed documents are private because they contain private contact details, however the text is at http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. This is the text of the SGA signed by Oracle as I note above. It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just missed an existing one, help appreciated ! 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. Ross
