Hi Marina, Marina Latini wrote: > The license is "EUPL-1.1" but looking at some of the subfolders I found for > example also mentions to GNU LGPLv2 [1]. > Yep, that's part of the LibreOffice l10n tools, that Samuel was cloning recently from there (and as such a build-time, not a runtime component).
> Did the ESC (or anyone else) make an analysis of the source code > looking for other licenses mentioned? Could it be possible to make > use of the REUSE[2] project started by FSFE? > REUSE is AFAIK working with already-existing metadata. I did run scancode a while ago without anything surprising sticking out, but it's a good point to run it again, before any possible final switch. > In the potential move under the TDF umbrella, is there any plan to > also re-license it following the usual licenses of LibreOffice? > I can ask LHM if that is an option. But would we really need that? LibreOffice itself only has the core code (mostly) under MPL. The binary itself has a massive bouquet of other licenses, and other libraries TDF is hosting, feature licenses ranging from GPL to ASL or BSD. > For example, looking at the GitHub project the main branch is called > "master". > Ah yep, thx for mentioning. That's an easy fix, and I'll also run the usual greps regarding other anachronisms in the code. Branch rename might though only happen immediately before or after the move (if/when approved). > Some comments are also affected by a similar non inclusive writing like for > example here [4] where the comment states "the bookmarks aren't deleted and > the user is request to confirm, that he wants to create a" and there's the > assumption that the user can be only a male. > If you share your greps with me, I can have a look. > As per today, there are 8 open pull requests[5] and some of them are in > German. Is there any plan to translate the content or close the PRs in > German and reopen new PRs in English? > I'd leave that to the maintainers. But sure, having PRs in English would presumably increase the chances of getting them merged. > Some of the existing pull requests use a tag "trac" but I could't find any > reference to this naming convention? Is this something private that the > mentioned maintainers from 2 organizations will take care of document? Could > it be possible to know more about those tags? > trac# is like the internal StarOffice bugtracker references in OOo/LibreOffice commit messages and code. I'm near certain that data cannot be published. > As per today, there are 14 open issues[6] and some of them are in German. > Like for the case of the pull requests, is there any plan to translate the > content or close the issues in German and reopen new issues in English? > Same answer as for PRs, that should be decided by those doing the work. > The security policy[7] seems to be not defined. Which is the > agreement here? Are the two mentioned maintainers supposed to take > over everything or WollMux will also be covered by the LibreOffice > security[8] policy? With that amount of lines of code I suppose the > ESC should have a clear view of the status of the project. > At least for the foreseeable future, we (allotropia) can look into any security reports. If/when the move happens, my suggestion would be reporting to secur...@documentfoundation.org, just like for DLP and LibreOffice. The only relevant issues over the time I see there is third party stuff, e.g. WollMux was affected by the log4j fallout. > The jenkinsfile is mentioning the integration with SonarQube[9] for > the the security scans, is there any plan to also move the SonarQube > setup under the TDF infra? > I'd also leave that to the maintainers, and our infra team. SonarQube needs an extra server (I think), and has an opencore business model - so whether that's a good fit for TDF infra needs discussion. > Which is the potential timeline for having the localization on > Weblate? Is there any ongoing discussion with the L10N team at > LibreOffice? > Hard to say, those things can I guess only happen (and then be discussed with the community), if/when the move has happened. > Should the L10N community consider also WollMux as a priority > project to be translated with high priority like LibreOffice (UI, > Help, Guides)? > I would not expect that. Then again, the effort (after initial translation) is likely very, very small per release. > The main WollmMux website[11] has a link to a catalog on JoinUp[12] that > describes WollMux as an extension for OpenOffice. Is this just an old > catalog description or WollMux is really intended for working with both > LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice (and it will need to support both?) > Pretty sure that's stale. Then again, the OXT has this: <OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value="2.1" name="OpenOffice.org 2.1"/> , so there's even more staleness (given that there was no sidebar support in that version, which is required now). Ultimately, which version(s) of LibreOffice and/or OpenOffice the maintainers want to support, is up to them (I'd certainly not expect a project hosted at TDF to continue OOo support). > On which operating systems WollMux is suppose to be supported? > Again a maintainer question, but if I'd put my TDF hat on, I'd say: ideally it should run on all desktop platforms TDF ships LibreOffice binaries for (if they permit a JRE installations). Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
