2011/9/13 Rob Weir <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Nick Burch <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>> I've been playing around with it for most of the day, but just realized >>> that the notification was just via JIRA, not to the list. >>> >>> Last night Gavin loaded our dump file. >>> >>> You can grab our code at: >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/odf/trunk >> >> Great news. I've updated the project status page: >> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/odftoolkit.html >> (May take an hour or so to show up) >> >> Once it has updated, can people check through and ensure all the status >> entries are up to date? >> > > OK > >> >>> At that point, the website, the code, the issues, and the mailing >>> lists are all at Apache. >> >> How are we doing on code grants? >> > > Is an SGA appropriate in this case? This is not a corporate > "donation" of source code. And it was ALv2 from the start, in the ODF > Toolkit Union, so there is no need to re-license it. > > Maybe handle this as part of the IP review? If we find any files that > are not under ALv2 or a compatible license, then we need to get an SGA > or remove that file. Would that work? > At the head of every source code file, there is a copyright statement,saying that the copyright is owned by IBM or Oracle. Will these copyright statement bring any issues? Do we need to remove it?
>>> We should think about what we want to put in our first release, whether we >>> want to consolidate the work we already have and do a quick release (say in >>> 4 weeks) or whether we want to do something more ambitious. >> >> Before a release could happen, there are a few steps that are needed. Off >> the top of my head, these include: >> * Licenses of dependencies need to be checked >> * NOTICE files need to be created, including dependency details if needed >> * License and Incubator discalaimers need checking/adding >> * Rat needs to be setup for the project, with appropriate excludes >> * Missing license headers (as identified by Rat) need to be resolved >> * The release process needs documenting >> >> These things can be a bit of a faff on the first release, but they make life >> much much easier going forward, so it's worth tackling them soon (and they >> need doing before the first release) >> > > Sounds painful... until it becomes routine. > >> Nick >> >
