On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Marcus (OOo) <[email protected]> wrote: >> Am 07/08/2012 01:04 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: >> >>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Ross Gardler<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Seems we missed a bit of process... >>>> >>>> From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: "Henri Yandell"<[email protected]> >>>> Date: Jul 8, 2012 3:22 AM >>>> Subject: Old projects with incomplete copyright diligence >>>> To: "general-incubator"<[email protected]> >>>> >>>> The following projects haven't signed off on the copyright checklist >>>> item: >>>> >>>> 2009-02-09 kato >>>> 2009-02-13 stonehenge >>>> 2009-05-13 socialsite >>>> 2010-05-19 amber >>>> 2010-09-05 nuvem >>>> 2010-11-12 kitty >>>> 2010-11-24 stanbol >>>> 2011-06-13 openofficeorg >>>> >>>> Said checklist item is: >>>> >>>> "Check and make sure that the papers that transfer rights to the ASF >>>> been received. It is only necessary to transfer rights for the >>>> package, the core code, and any new code produced by the project. " >>>> >>>> How long do we host software without explicitly stating we have these >>>> rights? >>>> >>>> Personally I think 1 year is more than enough, even for OpenOffice. >>>> >>> >>> Our practice has been to not check in code until after an SGA has been >>> received, e.g., the main OOo contribution from Oracle, the Symphony >>> contribution from IBM and the UOF 2.0 contribution from CS2C. >>> >>> So I assume we just need to fill in a date here in the "copyright" >>> section: >>> >>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/openofficeorg.html >>> >>> But what date? The first SGA? The most recent SGA? This is an >>> ongoing effort, for any living project that gets ongoing contributions >>> of existing corporate code. I expect it will continue as a TLP as >>> well. >> >> >> When we put in the first and the most recent date, maybe someone from the >> Apache officials can tell which is *the* date. Otherwise we hit it anyway. >> > > I've updated the page using the date of the 2nd SGA from Oracle: > 2011-10-21. That was the basis for our 3.4 release. > > I like the idea of listing all of the SGA's, but this page is > processed to produce some roll-up reports, and I don't know if the > automation will choke if we get too fancy with the inputs. So I'm > listing only that one date for now.
Thanks everyone :) Hen
