On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:45, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >... >> The repository can contain code that is licensed with a permissive >> license (ALv2, MIT, BSD). Of course, we try to have only "our" code, >> but over in httpd is a copy of PCRE, and APR has a copy of Expat. >> Stuff that is not "our" code must be listed in the NOTICE file. >> >> We cannot have any code in the repository that has a reciprocal license. > > Could you clarify one thing for me, please? > > I thought we could take the Oracle code as-is, and check it in, verify > that it is complete and builds, but that we would then be required to > resolve the license issues before could have a release or graduate. > Is that incorrect? Are we required to resolve these issues before we > even accept the SGA'ed code? It makes it difficult to collaborate on > resolving these issues if we cannot get the initial code into SVN.
Code in our repository must fall under one of several terms: 1) we have a Software Grant for it 2) a committer represents they can commit it under their ICLA 3) the code has a permissive license (as I detailed above) Because there is code in the OO.o repository that does not fall under one of the above terms, we cannot import it into the ASF repository. Now, I should amend my earlier statement. While in the Incubator, term (3) is relaxed. We cannot make a release with inappropriate licenses, and we certainly can't graduate with code in there that has inappropriate licenses. But as long as that stuff is worked out *within* the Incubator, then we're good. Post-graduation, all three terms will apply in strength. Hope that helps! Cheers, -g
