On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: >>>> On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend >>>>> beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of >>>>> them ? >>>> >>>> The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge, >>> ... >>>> The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files >>>> you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those >>>> too. >>> >>> Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern. >>> >>>> I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my >>>> guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history >>>> too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant >>>> covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us. >>> >>> Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were >>> supplied >>> to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics >>> went on there) ? >>> >> >> This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we >> imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure >> it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find >> the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching >> for "svn import". >> >>>> The signed documents are private because they contain private contact >>>> details, however the text is at >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> >>>> If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on >>>> the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to >>>> post to [email protected] where our VP Legal Affairs will be >>>> happy to respond. >>> >>> I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the >>> archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser). >>> >>> Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps >>> I >>> just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only >>> important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the >>> license headers. >>> >>> As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that >>> Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is >>> left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an >>> unclear state. >>> >>> In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally >>> licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based >>> (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the >>> process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so, >>> how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on >>> what exact versions of what are granted ]. >>> >>> Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the >>> license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS' >>> that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining >>> the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be >>> having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of >>> them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant >>> by eg. the tooltypes changes. >>> >>> IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from >>> Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like: >>> >>> "all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial >>> repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2" >>> >>> or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new >>> files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess. >>> Anyhow - most interested in the status of those. >>> >>> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside >>>> from aw080? >>> >>> I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the >>> list, >>> there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there - >>> everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake. >>> >>> I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to >>> understand >>> it in more detail. >>> >> >> I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the >> status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an >> official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache >> source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review >> and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on >> source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any >> official statement on code that is not in a release. > > I think he is asking about this: > > URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080
OK. So this code is not in a release. So it has not been formally reviewed or voted on. When a committer merges that branch into the trunk and we include it in an RC, then we'll need to take a closer look. But neither of these have occurred. But interesting questions, for another day. -Rob > Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf > Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 > Revision: 1328172 > Node Kind: directory > Schedule: normal > Last Changed Author: alg > Last Changed Rev: 1327856 > Last Changed Date: 2012-04-19 01:04:51 -0700 (Thu, 19 Apr 2012) > > David-Fishers-MacBook-Air:aw080 dave$ svn log . > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r1327856 | alg | 2012-04-19 01:04:51 -0700 (Thu, 19 Apr 2012) | 1 line > > aw080: fixes in svx, sd, stabilizing > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r1327190 | alg | 2012-04-17 10:23:56 -0700 (Tue, 17 Apr 2012) | 1 line > > aw080: stabilizing sw, sd and sc, changes to svx. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r1326092 | alg | 2012-04-14 05:17:53 -0700 (Sat, 14 Apr 2012) | 1 line > > Resync to current trunc > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r1205821 | alg | 2011-11-24 05:24:08 -0800 (Thu, 24 Nov 2011) | 1 line > > aw080: Initial commit of adapted aw080 cws. This is work in progress, do not > use yet. It is about changing the DrawingLayer core (model, view and > controller) to transformations and double precision graphic content > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r1205438 | alg | 2011-11-23 07:25:17 -0800 (Wed, 23 Nov 2011) | 1 line > > aw080: Creating a work branch for the longtime project to bring the > drawinglayer core to double precision and transformations > > Regards, > Dave > > >> >> -Rob >> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Michael. >>> >>> -- >>> [email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot >>> >
