Hi Oliver; What do you mean by "removal of the 3rd party components"?
I think the report builder should be moved to Apache-extras with three suggestions: - Attempt to contact the authors of the pentaho stuff, maybe they would like to have a say in it's future or even relicense it. -Wait until the headers are changed to AL2, before moving it out. - Rob has a SVN dump: maybe we can use it to preserve most of the early history of the stuff we move to Apache-extras. cheers, Pedro. --- On Wed, 11/2/11, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <[email protected]> wrote: ... > > I will start working on the removal of all 3rd party > components which > are needed for the report builder extension. > > Best regards, Oliver. > > > On 24.10.2011 15:18, 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 >
