On 16.06.2011 23:33, Andrew Rist wrote:
On 6/16/2011 9:15 AM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
On 16.06.2011 16:45, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Greg Stein<[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:09, Pedro Giffuni<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 10:59:12 +0200, Mathias
Bauer<[email protected]>
...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that nowhere in the
code repository we can have code that links against LGPL code. And of
course extensions are part of our code base also.
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.
-Rob
The Oracle code as-is will not be sufficient to build anything.
The initial list of files from Oracle misses several thousand files
(e.g. nearly the complete build system files) because these files
don't have copyright headers in them. To the best of my knowledge,
they are under Oracle's copyright, but it's not up to me to decide on
that.
People are working on that, but we obviously have to wait. Let's use
the time to go through all files where the copyright situation is
unclear or where we already know that the copyright holder is someone
else (I have posted a first list already).
Regards,
Mathias
I think this is a misunderstanding of "the Oracle code". I think Rob is
talking about the entire contents of the OOo source control, where
Mathias is thinking of the files in the SGA.
So the questions are:
- Is there anything in the Apache process that stops us from pulling in
the entire source control from OOo?
- Will that set of files enable us to build OOo (across platforms, etc.)?
- Is that the best starting place for beginning the code remediation,
like removing bits that cannot be relicensed, or are not license
compatible?
That sounds like a great idea that would allow us to work on the
different duties (checking licences and copyright, bootstrapping the
build etc.) in parallel.
As Greg pointed out that our incubator status can allow us to do so, I
would welcome this way of operation. As I wrote in another mail, in this
case we should export the code from the OOO340m1 milestone, apply my
list of "naughty" files to remove them and see what adjustments in the
build this will cause. In the meantime we also can continue to look for
more "naughty" files.
We also have to check how to deal with "external" source tarballs we
used to pull in before the build starts (this happens in the "bootstrap"
step). My recommendation is to do it in the same way: create the first
build with all of them and remove the LGPL stuff step by step, adding
configure switches to allow for optional builds in case they don't exist.
Regards,
Mathias
