Hi,
On 17.06.11 00:35, Greg Stein wrote:
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.
This sounds really good, as it allows us to work on getting a working
build in parallel to sorting out the license issues (and other things). :-)
Regards,
Kai.
Hope that helps!
Cheers,
-g
