Hi Rob, On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:53:25AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen > <bjoern.michael...@canonical.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would > > be convenient not having to recreate. According to: > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3cbanlktikvbfnr1viwqyw1+spzf68zx5g...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions: > > > > Where do you read that? I don't see that statement. I see Andrew > saying, "We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in > the OOo repositories." "Trying" is not the same as an SGA. I'm > trying to lose weight. But I can assure you my doctor will trust what > the scale says more than my stated intentions.
Your aggressive tone isnt helpful here, but if you want it like that -- fine: If you are "trying" to clarify the situation, you fail badly. You can easily correct that: Just state what exactly is covered by a SGA -- I can then ask Oracle directly to grant the rights for the stuff that is missing. As it, you make it appear as if the AOO project has no clue what parts of the old OOo code it actually owns. > > - Is this (my) work in this CWS released under AL2 to the public already > > with > > this? > > - If not and I do the work to re-base this CWS against master, and have it > > checked into an Apache SVN branch will the work then be immediately > > available under the ALv2 license? > > > > You say "(my) work". If it is indeed your IP, then you can do with it > as you wish, right? No. If you nitpick, get your facts right. The work was created as I was a german employee of Oracle. IANAL, but as Urheberrecht (copyright, the claim to authorship) is inalienable in Germany. At that point in time, Oracle had the exclusive right of use for the work, but AFAIK it is still _my_ work. > You could make it ALv2 with or without checking > it into SVN. But if it is not your IP, and your right to contribute > the code is questionable, then checking it into SVN would just provoke > someone to delete the code. How about, instead of wasting posts with sentences with way to many conditionals, you simply answer if this was covered by the SGA, so I know if I should hassle Oracle with that again (which I might or might not do as the CWS is hardly mission critcial). If I ask Oracle about this and it turns out Oracle already handed over code to AOO, but they had to burn ressources on that because AOO does not seem to be able to come clear with what it owns, that would throw a rather bad light on AOO, dont you think? But given the unconstructive reply here, I have to conclude AOO not even slighty interested in my casual contribution. > Also, isn't this essentially the same question that was raised by > Michael Meeks a couple of months ago? At that point I think the > recommendation was for RedHat or SUSE or TDF to talk to Oracle about > this, since they are the rights owner. Indeed this seem to be the way to go, I expect to receive a clear "yes" or "no" from that big corporation sooner that from AOO. Kinda sad and disillusional actually. Best, Bjoern
