On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent >>>>>>> thread on the legal-discuss list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant >>>>>>> Agreement. Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it >>>>>>> does offer its own copyright and patent license. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The license portion in question was this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions >>>>>>> of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to >>>>>>> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual, >>>>>>> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable >>>>>>> copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, >>>>>>> publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute >>>>>>> Your Contributions and such derivative works." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The question was: What does "software distributed by the Foundation" >>>>>>> mean? Does that mean only releases? Code in SVN? What exactly? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is >>>>>>> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA >>>>>>> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But note also Roy's later clarifying response: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the >>>>>>> "general public". It distributes to our self-selected development >>>>>>> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being >>>>>>> distributed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our >>>>>>> Subversion a couple of days ago: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think this is anything new. We already know that code that >>>>>>> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file >>>>>>> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc. That is part of what it means >>>>>>> to publish a release at Apache. But we have other stuff in Subversion >>>>>>> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not >>>>>>> make this effort. For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony. >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed this follows the policy here: >>>>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >>>>>> >>>>>> One subtle point here is the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, >>>>>> the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either: >>>>>> • remove such notices, or >>>>>> • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable >>>>>> project release, or >>>>>> • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or >>>>>> relocation of the notices." >>>>>> >>>>>> The SGA does not give those rights. >>>>>> >>> >>> Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer >>> on this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated >>> / minimized. >>> >>>>> >>>>> And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example) >>>>> is the section that says: >>>>> >>>>> "When must Apache projects comply with this policy? >>>>> >>>>> All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must >>>>> comply with this policy." >>>>> >>>>> The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in >>>>> any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable. >>> >>> I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the >>> ASF. But because something is not required does not mean it should not be >>> done. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone >>>>>> from the project can make these changes as they move the files. But >>>>>> unless this is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA >>>>>> to do it. That is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be >>>>>> constrained from doing this until this matter is cleared up. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward >>>>> to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able >>>> to confirm that the SGA terms are sufficient for them to work with the >>>> code (and I think any reasonable reading would show that they are) >>>> then they can go ahead and help merge it and ignore the header cleanup >>>> question. >>> >>> Let's do this. Should any project contributor wish to work on a portion of >>> this code someone from IBM will handle these two tasks: >>> > > Heck, I'll do one better. I volunteer to run a RAT scan on the trunk > every two weeks and remove any IBM headers that are found there. So > we'll never be more then two weeks behind. > > If you recall, the project worked on the trunk for AOO 3.4.0 for > nearly 6 months before all of the headers were cleaned up, and I don't > recall hearing you complain that this was an unacceptable risk. We > trusted Oracle, via Andrew, to do the right thing. So I'll do better > than that by a factor of 6*4/2 = 12. So 12x faster header cleanups > than occurred with AOO 3.4. > > Does that satisfy your concern?
Yes, I think that allows for any committer to scratch an itch. Please publish a note on dev since it might spark the interest of other devs Will you practice your rat fu on the Symphony branch? (maybe you have already?) Best Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >>> (1) Add the Apache License 2.0 Header. >>> >>> (2) Move the IBM (and other) Copyrights to NOTICE. >>> >>> I'm not saying the whole tree, but on request for a reasonable number of >>> files. >>> >>>> >>>> But before we release AOO 4.0 we'll of course run a RAT scan and that >>>> will identify any issue. And so no one need worry about this further, >>>> I volunteer to fix any header inconsistencies that show up there >>>> before we release. >>>> >>>> OK? >>> >>> It may not be OK for some. It is a risk, better to do the changes before or >>> as the code goes into trunk or a release branch. >>> >> >> Dave, I'm not asking you to speak for the universe, only for yourself. >> Do you want to help merge the Symphony code? Do you believe that you >> have insufficient rights to do this? Do you deny that my volunteering >> to update the headers in any release completely addresses the policy >> issue that you raised? >> >> Any other committer is free to speak for themselves on these >> questions. There is not need for you to guess what they may or may >> not think. >> >> -Rob >> >>> A supplemental note from IBM to the ASF secretary saying that there is no >>> objection to any Apache OpenOffice committer removing an IBM copyright in >>> the Symphony codebase to the NOTICE. With that in hand then we can all be >>> free to do the correct work with this wonderful codebase and contributions >>> from two of the most successful software corporations! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -Rob >>>> >>>>> -Rob >>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Dave >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>
