On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> > wrote: > >> > Was the licensing status of the CWSes in this repository every > resolved? > >> > > >> > >> The authorship is varied. > > > > > > Independent of the developers involved and the individual rights they > might > > have, I understood that the whole repository was Oracle's copyright > > property and thus a copyright license from them was required for any > member > > of this or other projects to use code from any given CWS unless it had > > already been integrated into AOO and thus fallen under the blanket grant > > made by Oracle. > > > > For the legacy Mercurial repository Andrea mentioned to be useful to > future > > developers I would expect the copyright status of the repo to thus need > > clarifying, and I don't recall seeing a definitive statement. > > > > Without commenting on your overly-simplistic statement of OOo > licensing, I'll just say that the release process is where we audit > licenses. I don't think anyone here has an interest in investigations > of code that is not targeted for inclusion in a release. So to be completely clear and specific, you're confirming that the problem we all identified with the non-integrated CWS copyrights being unlicensed has not been resolved and the only way to do so is to propose integration of each or any of them within the AOO release process? S.
