Pedro ++
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > Please note that we are doing both simultaneously to > avoid breaking the build. > > We do have to update the task list. There are some > uncommitted advances (libegg, ucpp) and some WIP > (nss), but there are still some binaries used in > the windows build and the glibc stubs. Otherwise, > we are doing pretty well and its a matter of hoping > Oracle wont leave additional license holes in the > SGA. > > Pedro. > > --- On Mon, 10/24/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to propose the following development > > milestones on our way to the first AOO release: > > > > - "IP cleared" milestone > > For this milestone we should remove all 3rd party > > components which are not compliant to Apache's "Third-Party > > Licensing Policy" [1]. All license headers in the source > > code files should be updated according to Oracle's SGA. > > Additionally, we may update certain information in the > > product in order to reflect that the product is now coming > > from Apache (e.g. the splash screen, the about dialog, > > ...). > > Then the IP review required by Apache could be performed in > > order to meet the corresponding requirements for our first > > release. > > This milestone would result in an OpenOffice.org missing a > > lot of important features, but this milestone would be the > > basis regarding Apache's IP rules. This milestone could be > > released according to the Apache rules. > > > > - "features back" milestone > > For this milestone we should work on bringing back the > > features which are lost in the previous milestone. I do not > > think that we have to bring back every feature for a first > > release. Thus, we would have got the possibility to work on > > the features which are of most interest. At some point we > > could create a "release candidate" and start working on > > stabilizing it for a first release, if we think that the > > "must have" features are back. > > > > > > In order to coordinate efforts and to avoid duplicate work > > I propose to use the IP clearance wiki page [2]. > > The basis for its content is more or less the Apache > > Migration wiki page [3]. Some additional information has > > been collected on certain 3rd party components. Also > > priorities have been assigned. But its content is not > > "nailed in stone". It currently reflects more or less the > > input and opionions of the editing contributors to these IP > > clearance issues. Thus, it would be a living document to > > reflect our knowlegde about these IP clearance issues. It > > would also document our efforts and our decisions regarding > > these efforts. > > > > > > Any remarks/comments/improvements/adjustments? > > Any objections to follow such plan for our first release? > > > > > > Best regards, Oliver. > > > > P.S.: I will be out-of-office for the rest of the week. > > Thus, I will probably not reply to your input regarding my > > proposal this week - please excuse. > > > > References: > > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP_Clearance > > [3] http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/ApacheMigration > > > -- This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
