On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> On 6/1/2011 1:24 PM, robert_w...@us.ibm.com wrote: > > Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org> wrote on 06/01/2011 12:21:23 PM: > > > >> There are only two initial committers identified in the proposal. Why > >> only two for such a large codebase? > > > > We could have put a much longer list of IBM names on this list, > developers > > familiar with the code base via their work on Lotus Symphony (which is > our > > OpenOffice based project). But then we could have been criticized for > the > > proposal being too dominated by IBM. It is clearly our intent to grow > > this project, both from our corporate developers, but also by recruiting > > new members to the project, including developers from related open source > > projects (see my previous note) > > The ASF preference (which you already know) is for individual IBM > developers > to add themselves to the effort. A large representation by IBM, or Novell, > or any other part of the ecosystem is not itself a problem. But there is > an apathy towards individuals who are 'signed up' to a project, and who do > not volunteer themselves. > > On a related note, is it Oracle's intent to prohibit participation at this > ASF project, or are interested developers (particularly previous > developers) > permitted to participate on their own time? > > > From a practical perspective it would have been impossible to do all of > > that recruitment without this proposal becoming public prematurely. So > the > > majority of the recruitment will occur during incubation. We obviously > > don't graduate from incubation with only two. But it should be enough to > > get the ball rolling. > > Understood. Looking forward to Sam's response to the 'sign yourself up' > discussion which Jim already responded to. > > > Oracle owns the copyright to the code and is is the one legally permitted > > to contribute it under Apache 2.0 license. This is because they required > > copyright assignment to Sun/Oracle as part of their CLA for OpenOffice. > So > > they aggregated and owned all copyrights. But that does not mean that > > they were the sole developers on OpenOffice.org And they are not the > sole > > contributors on this proposal. > > I've reviewed http://www.openoffice.org/license.html and the code > providence > doesn't seem to be a serious obstacle to entering incubation. However, > there > is this; > > Other Works > > Our preference is always for contributions of editable work. But in those > cases where editable material is difficult to obtain, there are several > options; all presume you hold copyright in the work: > > * You can sign the OCA, which covers all work (and not just code) > contributed to OpenOffice.org by you; > > * If your country's laws allow it, you can make it public domain by > declaring as much in a signed document (check if it is possible, > first!); > or > > * You can use the Creative Commons Attribution License > ("Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5"). > We only accept work under this license that is non-editable and for > which > there is no editable version that can be contributed to the project. > > This last item concerns me. How much of the contribution is unusable due > to the "Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5" tag, which would appear to be a category > X > license to ASF works? (I couldn't find a corresponding Jira in the legal > discuss tracker.) > The CC was generated for non-code contributions as far as I know. I would need to have that confirmed. > > > -- *Alexandro Colorado* *OpenOffice.org* Español http://es.openoffice.org
