Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

[toki]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 29/12/2015 18:00, Kay Schenk wrote:

> In other words, if an author/developer licenses code with
> a particular license, is it not the intention of that developer to
> have the the product used in accordance with the license? And, if
> that is the case, why are any additional requests needed?

Due Diligence.
To ensure that the license that accompanied the code was the license
that the author/developer distributed the code under.

jonathon




-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=CqTW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto backup copy.

[Patricia Shanahan]

On 12/29/2015 1:50 AM, FR web forum wrote:

I did find in options that in Options\Load Save\General “Always create a
backup copy” was not checked. This should be checked by default. :(


https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=104879
You can vote for this enhancement


Although I agree with the enhancement, and have voted for it, I do not 
think the automatic backup should be the only protection for a long and 
difficult to reproduce document. It would be better to put it under 
revision control, and have offsite backups.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The TL;DR:

Yes, the license page describes what must be reflected in LICENSE and NOTICE 
files for 3rd party software, and something about the software files too.  

It does not address how such software comes into a project's hands.  It is not 
about acceptance of such software.  No precedent about that should be read into 
the policy on how to satisfy the third-party license and conditions for 
notices. 

 - Dennis

MORE CONTEXT

Whenever the question about voluntary contributions (by someone asserting the 
right to do so) comes up, as it does regularly on a couple of ASF lists, the 
discussion invariably ends up affirming that voluntary contribution is 
expected.  

There are other nuances.  One is that the original license, when different than 
the ALv2, is accounted for in some manner and that copyright notices are not 
mucked with (except by someone having the right to do that).  Another is that, 
when the Apache Project is downstream in this case, patches and fixes will be 
contributed back when appropriate under the original license.

We have seen relevant cases on this project.

In general, it is necessary to address specific cases and determine what the 
precise situation requires.  The key take-away for me is that there is no 
precedent whatsoever with regard to appropriation of third-party code into a 
project.  Any exceptions are narrow and specific and not to be taken as 
precedents.

This falls out under the umbrella of the Apache Software Foundation projects 
producing software as a public good.  That fundamental principle extends to how 
ASF projects operate as good open-source citizens and do so without any 
requirement for reciprocity but as a matter of good will.  This seems to be 
fundamental to the DNA of the Apache Software Foundation.

It is attention to this sort of thing that Project Management Committees are 
accountable for, with assistance of the legal-discuss and other lists when 
needed.

 - Dennis 

> -Original Message-
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 10:04
> To: OOo Apache 
> Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording
> 
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti 
> wrote:
> 
> > Kay Schenk wrote:
> >
> >> OK, I will look for something like this, or please reply to this
> >> thread if you find something.
> >>
> >
> > I've found it mentioned here, even though this is not a policy page:
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html
> > "The ASF only accepts voluntary contributions of software and
> > documentation that are expressly licensed to The ASF under an approved
> open
> > source license".
> >
> 
> ​Thanks. This seems much more stringent  to the wording on the acceptable
> 3rd pa​
> ​rty licensing page where only a reference in a NOTICE file to the
> original
> work is required. I will investigate further before changing anything.
>  
> 
> 
> >
> > That said, if you still wish to edit the page I'm not opposing. I
> simply
> > pointed out that it is correct as it is now. If we reword it the way
> you
> > propose, it will still be correct.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Andrea.
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> --
> MzK
> 
> “I appreciate failure. Failure means that an
>  attempt was made,  and a lesson can be learned.
>  As long as we’re alive after the effort,
>  there is a chance for success the next time around.”
> -- George Tekai, "Oh
> Myyy!"


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

[Kay Schenk]

On 12/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> The TL;DR:
> 
> Yes, the license page describes what must be reflected in LICENSE
> and NOTICE files for 3rd party software, and something about the
> software files too.
> 
> It does not address how such software comes into a project's
> hands.  It is not about acceptance of such software.  No
> precedent about that should be read into the policy on how to
> satisfy the third-party license and conditions for notices.
> 
> - Dennis

If we go back to the acceptable licenses for distribution with ALv2
-- http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

Combined with the instructions for using these "acceptable"
products/ portions, why is it not sufficient to accept that the code
came into the project's hands by virtue of the license used for the
software? In other words, if an author/developer licenses code with
a particular license, is it not the intention of that developer to
have the the product used in accordance with the license? And, if
that is the case, why are any additional requests needed?

> 
> MORE CONTEXT
> 
> Whenever the question about voluntary contributions (by someone
> asserting the right to do so) comes up, as it does regularly on a
> couple of ASF lists, the discussion invariably ends up affirming
> that voluntary contribution is expected.
> 
> There are other nuances.  One is that the original license, when
> different than the ALv2, is accounted for in some manner and that
> copyright notices are not mucked with (except by someone having
> the right to do that).  Another is that, when the Apache Project
> is downstream in this case, patches and fixes will be contributed
> back when appropriate under the original license.
> 
> We have seen relevant cases on this project.
> 
> In general, it is necessary to address specific cases and
> determine what the precise situation requires.  The key take-away
> for me is that there is no precedent whatsoever with regard to
> appropriation of third-party code into a project.

To me, this explanation means specific licensing is somewhat irrelevant.

  Any exceptions
> are narrow and specific and not to be taken as precedents.
> 
> This falls out under the umbrella of the Apache Software
> Foundation projects producing software as a public good.  That
> fundamental principle extends to how ASF projects operate as good
> open-source citizens and do so without any requirement for
> reciprocity but as a matter of good will.  This seems to be
> fundamental to the DNA of the Apache Software Foundation.

I understand this but I still remain concerned about the additional
 requirements for use assuming the author/developer chose a license
that was acceptable for his/her specific use, with the intention
that the license would fully cover use without the need for explicit
permission.

> 
> It is attention to this sort of thing that Project Management
> Committees are accountable for, with assistance of the
> legal-discuss and other lists when needed.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
>> -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk
>> [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015
>> 10:04 To: OOo Apache  Subject: Re:
>> [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> 
 OK, I will look for something like this, or please reply to
 this thread if you find something.
 
>>> 
>>> I've found it mentioned here, even though this is not a
>>> policy page: 
>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/privacy.html "The
>>> ASF only accepts voluntary contributions of software and 
>>> documentation that are expressly licensed to The ASF under an
>>> approved
>> open
>>> source license".
>>> 
>> 
>> ​Thanks. This seems much more stringent  to the wording on the
>> acceptable 3rd pa​ ​rty licensing page where only a reference
>> in a NOTICE file to the original work is required. I will
>> investigate further before changing anything.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> That said, if you still wish to edit the page I'm not
>>> opposing. I
>> simply
>>> pointed out that it is correct as it is now. If we reword it
>>> the way
>> you
>>> propose, it will still be correct.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards, Andrea.
>>> 
>>> -
>>>
>>> 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> --
>>
>> 
MzK
>> 
>> “I appreciate failure. Failure means that an attempt was made,
>> and a lesson can be learned. As long as we’re alive after the
>> effort, there is a chance for success the next time around.” --
>> George Tekai, "Oh Myyy!"
> 
> 
> -
>
> 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto backup copy.

[toki]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 26/12/2015 15:55, Bill M wrote:

> I did find in options that in Options\Load Save\General “Always create
 a
> backup copy” was not checked. This should be checked by default. :(

a) There is an extremely obscure, semi-inconsistently ir-reproducible
bug in AOo, EO, and LibO that is triggered when "Always create backup
copy" is checked. This bug both destroys data, and prevents the backup
copy from being made.

b) Manually saving the file is superior to automated backup, precisely
one can save it to different folders, and thus rollback to earlier
states is possible. (I'm deliberately ignoring OoSVN here.)

jonathon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=B5xw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto backup copy.

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

It sounds like that is what we should be working on, if we continue to offer 
the option.

Is there a Bugzilla # on this?

> -Original Message-
> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:08
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto
> backup copy.
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 26/12/2015 15:55, Bill M wrote:
> 
> > I did find in options that in Options\Load Save\General “Always create
>  a
> > backup copy” was not checked. This should be checked by default. :(
> 
> a) There is an extremely obscure, semi-inconsistently ir-reproducible
> bug in AOo, EO, and LibO that is triggered when "Always create backup
> copy" is checked. This bug both destroys data, and prevents the backup
> copy from being made.
> 
> b) Manually saving the file is superior to automated backup, precisely
> one can save it to different folders, and thus rollback to earlier
> states is possible. (I'm deliberately ignoring OoSVN here.)
> 
> jonathon
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWgtoHAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR72jkP/0nNbnBNk7TrkfgmM72JzwbW
> ASCSBsbUsQPAFUMKpYr8x1mOQgnbJqf5s1ONRKhDLBYH6+kFpFIIANnUHXxX1/6f
> 7khkPNz/hf/53Q0VN0CpcZ9YqW5l2NXL9q3S9VQdW3RgSAcufEfF3+xIN2uzUr9T
> A1B3lbxwps2f/aMl7MzZIDUo3MUTIVdHtFeuMTkv5prKGn69sXaR5Z93g3dN0YPM
> oTObpVhTLAvOOWA696JGvUNRYofFjbKFj/XDNat1fVS8zEbj2q2SFerFgmSmKdad
> CmYtV/Bz4R6O3ScCw2rCbE5QSEKsXdpp987IC0azGCr2cFVACAY/6HjyzOyLRv3A
> IhpYW9Kt9zFjRpKhIHcIPSLR6R+LDQKfter9GQgDbSXNBP7+SWjx1k7Pv0U5eQJF
> D8t6soZwJgYJSvwIiL8OzXHSESxzH+CXKNzSrFYNS3HFccxNIGHeI4gL9A0JHGPN
> H49cAUElrIvqN2He4ary1o4FAYqBindK6PnVnnN8FHW1FJfKptptSIOKEGM1m20X
> CwC2zy4xGJdGiJMBR/C5F3dVD8RXhcXYbwSMZEdlY0QAX4oujzVetQE4w5kT8BLa
> imYk4+Cg/pPiYHUzgvl5mH8uR2m2CqLvAVtaFT8sknQNdWEu5raKKNvpVP+why/N
> 9Afk7zzU+jH6m66q9vkH
> =B5xw
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

> -Original Message-
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:00
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > The TL;DR:
> >
> > Yes, the license page describes what must be reflected in LICENSE
> > and NOTICE files for 3rd party software, and something about the
> > software files too.
> >
> > It does not address how such software comes into a project's
> > hands.  It is not about acceptance of such software.  No
> > precedent about that should be read into the policy on how to
> > satisfy the third-party license and conditions for notices.
> >
> > - Dennis
> 
> If we go back to the acceptable licenses for distribution with ALv2
> -- http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> 
> Combined with the instructions for using these "acceptable"
> products/ portions, why is it not sufficient to accept that the code
> came into the project's hands by virtue of the license used for the
> software? In other words, if an author/developer licenses code with
> a particular license, is it not the intention of that developer to
> have the the product used in accordance with the license? And, if
> that is the case, why are any additional requests needed?
[orcmid] 

I suggest you ask this specific question on the dev@ community.apache.org list 
or the general@ incubator.apache.org list where you will find more about the 
notion of "willing contribution."  This gets asked regularly, even about using 
ALv2 code from other Apache Projects.

[ ... ]


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

RE: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto backup copy.

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

I also think it is important to distinguish auto-save and the related 
auto-recovery from keeping a backup.

Automatically keeping a backup involves not writing over the document that was 
opened, usually by renaming the original in some manner, and not intruding on 
normal operation.  Backing up a document that is opened for editing is simple, 
efficient, and difficult to have fail.  It should deal with the commonly 
reported cases of corrupted saves on shutdowns/interruptions and also when one 
notices that they have done something horrible in the editing.  This is not 
intrusive on editing but does assume enough disk capacity, something AOO 
appears to need anyhow.  I have all manner of document editors that do this 
automatically.

Keeping a backup and/or auto-save/-recovery also don't satisfy the need for 
revision control, although I notice the built-in backup machinery of Windows 10 
dates the changed files it detects and backs up, providing for retention of 
multiple versions.  Having backup to the cloud as well is also increasingly 
available on modern platforms, and OpenOffice doesn't have to do anything about 
it.  I suspect that Macintosh users also have sufficient resources on the 
platform.

Folks who do extensive edits without introducing their own intermediate backups 
of work-in-progress will probably not be saved by anything that AOO can do 
automatically that does not introduce risks of its own, risks we should not be 
the source of.  Safe practices and ways to have support from available platform 
services might merit some Wiki pages though.

 - Dennis 

> -Original Message-
> From: Patricia Shanahan [mailto:p...@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 08:32
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto
> backup copy.
> 
> On 12/29/2015 1:50 AM, FR web forum wrote:
> >> I did find in options that in Options\Load Save\General “Always
> create a
> >> backup copy” was not checked. This should be checked by default. :(
> >
> > https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=104879
> > You can vote for this enhancement
> 
> Although I agree with the enhancement, and have voted for it, I do not
> think the automatic backup should be the only protection for a long and
> difficult to reproduce document. It would be better to put it under
> revision control, and have offsite backups.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto backup copy.

[Patricia Shanahan]

+1

This may be a good project for me to participate in, along with people 
who know AOO internals. I have a lot of practical experience with 
tracking down and fixing extremely obscure intermittent bugs in 
operating systems and prototypes of cache coherent multiprocessor 
servers, so I'm not scared of them.


Now getting AOO to build on Windows 8.1..

Patricia

On 12/29/2015 6:33 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

It sounds like that is what we should be working on, if we continue to offer 
the option.

Is there a Bugzilla # on this?


-Original Message-
From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:08
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto
backup copy.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 26/12/2015 15:55, Bill M wrote:


I did find in options that in Options\Load Save\General “Always create

  a

backup copy” was not checked. This should be checked by default. :(


a) There is an extremely obscure, semi-inconsistently ir-reproducible
bug in AOo, EO, and LibO that is triggered when "Always create backup
copy" is checked. This bug both destroys data, and prevents the backup
copy from being made.

b) Manually saving the file is superior to automated backup, precisely
one can save it to different folders, and thus rollback to earlier
states is possible. (I'm deliberately ignoring OoSVN here.)

jonathon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=B5xw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto backup copy.

[Rory O'Farrell]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:44:45 -0800
Patricia Shanahan  wrote:

> +1
> 
> This may be a good project for me to participate in, along with people 
> who know AOO internals. I have a lot of practical experience with 
> tracking down and fixing extremely obscure intermittent bugs in 
> operating systems and prototypes of cache coherent multiprocessor 
> servers, so I'm not scared of them.
> 
> Now getting AOO to build on Windows 8.1..
> 
> Patricia

A side effect of curing this problem may be an increase in time taken to Save 
OpenOffice files.  In writing an OpenOffice ODF file the last component written 
to the user profile is file registrymodifications.xcu (work of Forum volunteer 
John_Ha - reference available if required).  This file is frequently damaged by 
premature shutdown; damage to it is a reason for the frequently reported loss 
of spellchecking. John_Ha has also located possible reasons for oft-reported 
loss of illustrations.

Rory

> 
> On 12/29/2015 6:33 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> > It sounds like that is what we should be working on, if we continue to 
> > offer the option.
> >
> > Is there a Bugzilla # on this?
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: toki [mailto:toki.kant...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 11:08
> >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto
> >> backup copy.
> >>
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 26/12/2015 15:55, Bill M wrote:
> >>
> >>> I did find in options that in Options\Load Save\General “Always create
> >>   a
> >>> backup copy” was not checked. This should be checked by default. :(
> >>
> >> a) There is an extremely obscure, semi-inconsistently ir-reproducible
> >> bug in AOo, EO, and LibO that is triggered when "Always create backup
> >> copy" is checked. This bug both destroys data, and prevents the backup
> >> copy from being made.
> >>
> >> b) Manually saving the file is superior to automated backup, precisely
> >> one can save it to different folders, and thus rollback to earlier
> >> states is possible. (I'm deliberately ignoring OoSVN here.)
> >>
> >> jonathon
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> >> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
> >>
> >> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWgtoHAAoJEKG7hs8nSMR72jkP/0nNbnBNk7TrkfgmM72JzwbW
> >> ASCSBsbUsQPAFUMKpYr8x1mOQgnbJqf5s1ONRKhDLBYH6+kFpFIIANnUHXxX1/6f
> >> 7khkPNz/hf/53Q0VN0CpcZ9YqW5l2NXL9q3S9VQdW3RgSAcufEfF3+xIN2uzUr9T
> >> A1B3lbxwps2f/aMl7MzZIDUo3MUTIVdHtFeuMTkv5prKGn69sXaR5Z93g3dN0YPM
> >> oTObpVhTLAvOOWA696JGvUNRYofFjbKFj/XDNat1fVS8zEbj2q2SFerFgmSmKdad
> >> CmYtV/Bz4R6O3ScCw2rCbE5QSEKsXdpp987IC0azGCr2cFVACAY/6HjyzOyLRv3A
> >> IhpYW9Kt9zFjRpKhIHcIPSLR6R+LDQKfter9GQgDbSXNBP7+SWjx1k7Pv0U5eQJF
> >> D8t6soZwJgYJSvwIiL8OzXHSESxzH+CXKNzSrFYNS3HFccxNIGHeI4gL9A0JHGPN
> >> H49cAUElrIvqN2He4ary1o4FAYqBindK6PnVnnN8FHW1FJfKptptSIOKEGM1m20X
> >> CwC2zy4xGJdGiJMBR/C5F3dVD8RXhcXYbwSMZEdlY0QAX4oujzVetQE4w5kT8BLa
> >> imYk4+Cg/pPiYHUzgvl5mH8uR2m2CqLvAVtaFT8sknQNdWEu5raKKNvpVP+why/N
> >> 9Afk7zzU+jH6m66q9vkH
> >> =B5xw
> >> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 


-- 
Rory O'Farrell 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording

[Dave Fisher]

Sorry for the top post. It really is not as mysterious as it seems.

The legal-discuss@ list is where we should go for clarifications if this 
community has trouble with specific answers.

The main emphasis about the voluntary contribution policy is about code 
contributed to and distributed by this project within our source code releases.

If code is contributed then there are various ways the contribution should be 
handled. In general patches contributed via bugzilla are assumed to be safely 
AL v2,0. All project committers have signed a Contributors License Agreement. 
Larger contributions like Oracle's and IBM's go through an SGA process and 
gene...@incubator.apache.org is involved either as a incubating project or as 
ip clearance.  In all cases there is some oversight and public record. Anyone 
can subscribe to the commit mailing list.

If part of the source archive or a commit is called into question then the 
question is dealt with by evaluating the facts. The PMC has removed 
inappropriate contributions. These discussions are private and have occurred.

We always need to discuss specific examples in the project first.

Adding project dependencies is a different question. In that case license and 
use are more determinant. The boundary between operating environment may come 
into play. Answers on legal-discuss do vary and LGPL system libraries on Linux 
may be allowed, depending on the case.

We need to be able to interpret here first. We benefit when the community 
perceives  correct ip requirements for contribution.

Regards,
Dave 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 29, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:

>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 10:00
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Changes to local "code use" wording
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12/29/2015 09:05 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
>>> The TL;DR:
>>> 
>>> Yes, the license page describes what must be reflected in LICENSE
>>> and NOTICE files for 3rd party software, and something about the
>>> software files too.
>>> 
>>> It does not address how such software comes into a project's
>>> hands.  It is not about acceptance of such software.  No
>>> precedent about that should be read into the policy on how to
>>> satisfy the third-party license and conditions for notices.
>>> 
>>> - Dennis
>> 
>> If we go back to the acceptable licenses for distribution with ALv2
>> -- http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> 
>> Combined with the instructions for using these "acceptable"
>> products/ portions, why is it not sufficient to accept that the code
>> came into the project's hands by virtue of the license used for the
>> software? In other words, if an author/developer licenses code with
>> a particular license, is it not the intention of that developer to
>> have the the product used in accordance with the license? And, if
>> that is the case, why are any additional requests needed?
> [orcmid] 
> 
> I suggest you ask this specific question on the dev@ community.apache.org 
> list or the general@ incubator.apache.org list where you will find more about 
> the notion of "willing contribution."  This gets asked regularly, even about 
> using ALv2 code from other Apache Projects.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Complaint Writer lost 36 pages of my document with no auto backup copy.

[FR web forum]

>I did find in options that in Options\Load Save\General “Always create a
>backup copy” was not checked. This should be checked by default. :(

https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=104879
You can vote for this enhancement

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org