On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think you are just trying to find some silly excuse to complain > about code that *you* clearly didn't write or own. All the code > either from version control or bugzilla was provided by Oracle
That is not what was said in the ooo-dev list http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201204.mbox/%3CCAKQbXgCF0b8qtXkF1C_Yryx=EXfww4gX=-+vfkv15k_nnme...@mail.gmail.com%3E clearly your assumption that the SGA extend to everything that one can put his hands on does not seems supported by the document itself. At the very least there are serious doubt as to the extent the SGA cover CWSs and/or random patch from bugzilla that had not been integrated into the project prior to the grant. But to my point: there are questions about the extent of the scope of the SGA, question that have been brushed-off with a 'let's cross-that-bridge-when-we-get-there' to avoid addressing the complex 'general statement'. Fine, but thn one would expect the actual applied instance of this general problem to be at least discussed and resolved with the copyright owner(s).... no such things occurred, at least not on publicly accessible mailing-list. Norbert
