You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> on 2011/06/06 12:02:40 UTC
Code covered by the Oracle grant
Forwarding as requested.
- Sam Ruby
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christian Lohmaier <lo...@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:45 AM
Subject: [tdf-discuss] Code covered by the Oracle grant (was: Proposal
to join Apache OpenOffice)
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Hi Sam, *,
please forward this also to the apache-list where I'm not subscribed
(I suggest only Sam does, in order to prevent 50 people forwarding the
very same mail :-D)
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Christian Lohmaier
> <lo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As far as I know, there is only the "intent" of Oracle to
>> donate it unter the Apache License, but no clear statement has been
>> made as to what exact sourcecode this will cover.
>
> The ASF has a signed software grant with a specific list of source files.
>
>> It's not even clear whether it will be the current codebase or some
>> older version IBM is basing their version on.
>
> It is the codebase on openoffice.org. The intent is to move the full
> version history. The mechanics of this have yet to be worked out.
As on the apache list, a link to that "list of source files" has been
provided, and there have been claims that this list is covering the
whole source, I had a deeper look myself.
1st of all: It doesn't any history-data/mercurial database files, so
how this point is covered is not clear to me at all, but on to my
analysis of the Oracle provided filelist that was made available here:
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/openoffice.files.txt
1st observation: Some filepaths are split. The lines are split
at various line-length, and not at "word limits" like the dot for the
filename extension or the slash that delimits directorys, but in
middle of the string, see http://libreoffice.pastebin.ca/2075460 for a
patch to fix those
2nd observation: The file is not sorted alphabetically (at least
differs from sort output/what comm tool that is later used expects, so
sort it:
sort openoffice.files.txt > sorted_ooo.lst
In order to do the comparison, clone the current repo
hg clone http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/
and create a filelist, excluding the repository's data
find DEV300/ -type f -not -path 'DEV300/.hg/*' | cut -c 8- | sort > repo.lst
raw numbers:
wc -l repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst
69076 repo.lst
39616 sorted_ooo.lst
So even calling this "seems to include the full repo" and that even
twice is either with malicious intent, or with no clue. Christian
Lippka really should know better, but had stated this at least twice.
Close to 30000 files gone, who cares "source seems complete"..
Now to interesting numbers:
Files in the Oracle's list, but not in the repo-list (= files most
likely moved by refactoring the code (gbuildification of modules and
similar) = indication of when the snapshot was taken):
comm -1 -3 repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst |wc -l
$ 455
digging in hg's history shows that the snapshot of the sources must
have been taken before 2011-03-21 - as those files were [re]moved in the
following cws:
276288 2011-03-21 CWS-TOOLING: integrate CWS dr78
276552 2011-03-29 CWS-TOOLING: integrate CWS ka102
276583 2011-03-29 CWS-TOOLING: integrate CWS vcl2gnumake
276711 2011-04-01 CWS-TOOLING: integrate CWS solaris11
276673 2011-04-01 CWS-TOOLING: integrate CWS calcvba
276692 2011-04-01 CWS-TOOLING: integrate CWS mav60
So while one can clearly say that those are not part of the sources,
and hence the code is at most in the state of m103 (but of course that
doesn't exclude that the codebase can be older than that) The changes of at
least 27 CWS (+3 masterfix ones) that have been integrated into OOo
code in the meantime are definitely missing.
Files in repo, but not in Oracle's list:
$ comm -2 -3 repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst |wc -l
29915
sdf files = translation files: Those are not included in either repos,
the sdf files that are in the repo are for testcases/gsicheck, the translations
have been split to a seperate repository
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/master_l10n/DEV300/
So those don't even account to the difference!
$ grep -c sdf$ repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst
repo.lst:10
sorted_ooo.lst:0
Image files = binary files
egrep -c '(bmp|png|gif|jpe?g)$' repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst
repo.lst:12352
sorted_ooo.lst:0
So this is one big chunk, all toolbar icons for the different themes,
cursors, artwork for the installers, etc.
But what are the remaining 17563 files? shell-fu will give a hint:
$ comm -2 -3 repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst | egrep -v
'(bmp|png|gif|jpe?g)$' | sed -n -e 's/.*\.\([^./]*\)$/\1/p' | sort |
uniq -c | sort -rn | head
1716 ott
1329 xml
1140 xlb
813 xcu
749 cfg
710 csv
588 txt
555 h
472 css
459 java
OK, the user will not get any templates either, too bad, but the next
ones are interesting. No configuration schemes, no configuration data
either.
Let's have a closer look:
$ comm -2 -3 repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst | grep xcu$ | awk -F/ '{print
$1}' |sort |uniq -c
32 dictionaries
4 extensions
716 filter
3 lingucomponent
2 mysqlc
21 odk
16 officecfg
1 pyuno
3 scripting
7 sdext
5 sfx2
3 testautomation
Want to load documents? Too bad, Apache won't know about the filters.
Want to save? Hah, that 's a good one, apache-OOo doesn't know about
export filters either.
Spellchecking? ha, dream on… (but that is understandable, as
dictionaries are mostly third-party stuff, so that one is excused)
Let alone the other binary files (various OOo documents, also some
MS-Office documents, the palettes, icon/wav (for gallery) the
interesting ones include:
Tons of xml
comm -2 -3 repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst | grep xml$ | awk -F/ '{print $1}'
|sort |uniq -c |sort -nr | head
235 sw
201 i18npool
154 sc
129 sd
112 testautomation
64 dictionaries
51 toolkit
45 desktop
34 scripting
29 svx
Didn't look into that closer, but
$ comm -2 -3 repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst | grep xml$ | grep toolbar |wc -l
392
So want to use toolbar buttons? Too bad, the corresponding definitions
are not included, you won't get any/most toolbars. Good luck starting
from scratch defining your own.
But let alone those boring "non-code" stuff.
134 patches missing (for the external modules) (Ok, that's arguable,
as the external modules won't be part of apache-OOo in the long run
anyway)
You want to actually build this thing? Well, too bad - the build.lst
files that define the inter-module & directory dependencies, and the
d.lst files that list the module' files to be exported for use by
other modules are not included either:
$ grep -c d.lst repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst
repo.lst:425
sorted_ooo.lst:0
similar: 302 *.mk files that are only in the repo, amongst them the
solenv//inc/_tg_*.mk ones, the templates that define the very basic
target rules used throughout the build (and that are expanded by
mkunroll to produce the makefiles that are then included by the actual
build)
So with this snapshot, Apache-OOo is far from being able to deliver
something that is even close to OOo.as it is now. It is missing all
translations, all artwork, build-dependency definitions that are
absolutely needed for doing a build, no toolbar-definitions, no
filter-configurations.
Apart from the systematic omission of images, random source-files are
missing as well, probably because they don't carry the default copyright
header, for example binfilter/inc/bf_svx/svxslots.hxx
So calling this list "complete" or stating something along the lines
of "looks like a straight dump from hg" is a joke.
So Oracle definitely needs to revise that list, and include at least
the translations, the artwork, the configuration data/xml-files, the
randomly omitted files, etc. And while they're on it, they could base
their list on the current m106 milestone.
ciao
Christian
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 7 juin 11 à 06:01, Ralph Goers a écrit :
>>
>> It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if
>> those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests,
>> that we will obtain subsequent software grants.
>
> Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will
> vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's
> summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His
> summary ended with "Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver
> something that is even close to OOo as it is now." As I've said
> before, I don't want to see the project start off with an extremely
> large amount of work to do just to get something working.
There is a simple way to create a correct set of files :
- download the OOODev mercurial bundle,
- extract one milestone,
- remove the metadatas and you should obtain a full tree
- verify the tree is buildable
This tree could be used to create a new repository, based on svn or
whatever. What I propose is really not that difficult, and if you
need volunteers, I can help.
Note this method has some pros :
- create the exact list of files is extremely easy, and lot of tools
can be used in that purpose.
- to verify what is missing is extremely easy too
At the end, create a diff between the initial list provided by Oracle
and the one we created, from a buildable tree.
> In later posts I see you got more files added to the list by
> Oracle and a list of more missing files from Simon.
> I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the
> point where those far more familiar with the code than I am can
> verify it is at a reasonable starting point before we vote on this.
>
At the beginning, why didn't Apache Foundation ask Oracle to provide
a full and buildable tree, and then remove what could cause problem ?
I must be stupid, but I do not understand the logical ...
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Education Project:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Simon Brouwer <si...@xs4all.nl>.
Hi Thorsten,
Thorsten Behrens schreef:
> Simon Brouwer wrote:
>> The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle
>> can't supply and that is very difficult to replace.
>>
> If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes".
Both? That was only one question, and Christian's mail doesn't answer it
with "yes".
Although essential things are missing, it's not apparent that those are
things Oracle doesn't have the copyright to. If you think otherwise, give
examples please.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer
-*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On 7 Jun 2011, at 13:06, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 07/06/11 11:42, Christian Lippka wrote:
>> Am 07.06.2011 11:09, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
>>
>>> If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes". And
>>> another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of
>>> sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one
>>> tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass.
>
> yes, the history is definitely valuable; in fact i sometimes am frustrated that it only starts in 2000 and misses out the first 10 years...
Keep in mind that one can do both - keep all the history -but- at the same time ensure that releases done under the ASF its banner only contain code covered by the software grant. And that any code added since that software grant 'stake in the sand' point is covered by the normal CCLA agreement with an indivudal committer. Combine that with a bit of frugal oversight by the PMC (to spot accidental cut-and-paste from pre-watershed code) and one has the best of both worlds perhaps?
Dw
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Michael Stahl <ms...@openoffice.org>.
On 07/06/11 11:42, Christian Lippka wrote:
> Hi Thorsten,
>
> Am 07.06.2011 11:09, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
>> Simon Brouwer wrote:
>>> The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle
>>> can't supply and that is very difficult to replace.
>>>
>> If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes". And
>> another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of
>> sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one
>> tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass.
yes, the history is definitely valuable; in fact i sometimes am
frustrated that it only starts in 2000 and misses out the first 10 years...
>> All of that makes starting off from the hg repo appear desirable ...
> While I fully agree that the commit history is of value, I do not see
> the need to
> include them when switching to AL. IMHO it is perfectly legal for anyone
> to clone
> the currently available repositories and archive them and also make them
> available
> publicly. So those information will not be lost, this is the internet :-)
certainly a valid point.
but not having to go to "some other place" to access the history is
convenient.
> This is not an argument against having the history, I'm perfectly fine
> with that
> solution also. But in this case my personal preference would be to start
> clean.
i don't agree with this.
not using the current HG repository will create a lot of pain when
integrating the currently outstanding CWSes (assuming those will be
donated as well, of course).
for example, take a look at the contents of CWS aw080, which replaces
the tools RTTI with C++ standard RTTI, with changes all over the place,
and as a patch is >10MB, and tell me that you want to apply that patch
manually against a code base that has diverged (losing the CWS internal
history in the process).
besides, as you already noted, there are the scalability problems of
SVN's merge tracking, that made it unusable with OOo's branch-heavy
development model after half a year.
having used HG for years now, i see the proposal to use SVN as a big
regression for OOo development.
regards,
michael
Disclaimer: These are my personal opinions as an individual interested
in the future of an open source office suite. I do not speak for my
current employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com>.
Hi Thorsten,
Am 07.06.2011 11:09, schrieb Thorsten Behrens:
> Simon Brouwer wrote:
>> The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle
>> can't supply and that is very difficult to replace.
>>
> If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes". And
> another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of
> sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one
> tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass.
>
> All of that makes starting off from the hg repo appear desirable ...
While I fully agree that the commit history is of value, I do not see
the need to
include them when switching to AL. IMHO it is perfectly legal for anyone
to clone
the currently available repositories and archive them and also make them
available
publicly. So those information will not be lost, this is the internet :-)
This is not an argument against having the history, I'm perfectly fine
with that
solution also. But in this case my personal preference would be to start
clean.
Regards,
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Thorsten Behrens <th...@documentfoundation.org>.
Simon Brouwer wrote:
> The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle
> can't supply and that is very difficult to replace.
>
If you re-read Christian's mail, the answer to both is "yes". And
another remark: given the overall state of the code (~20 years of
sedimentation), the full project history is of great value, when one
tries to figure out how one specific piece of code came to pass.
All of that makes starting off from the hg repo appear desirable ...
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Simon Brouwer <si...@xs4all.nl>.
Ralph Goers schreef:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word)
>>> correct my
>>> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if
>>> requested. But
>>> this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
>>
>> I'll share my understanding.
>>
>> My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not
>> accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious
>> consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and
>> Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving
>> this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list
>> to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later.
>>
>> This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with
>> lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent
>> via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to
>> either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline.
>>
>> My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains
>> only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under
>> incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to
>> include a standard ASF software grant.
>>
>> While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more,
>> and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this
>> comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at
>> Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith.
>>
>> It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if
>> those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests,
>> that we will obtain subsequent software grants.
>
> Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for
> the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has
> supplied about 50% of the OOo source code.
To put this into perspective, if I remember correctly Christian's summary
dealt with file lists and did not take file size into account. So that 50%
in file count may represent a far bigger percentage of source code.
The real question is whether anything essential is missing that Oracle
can't supply and that is very difficult to replace.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer
-*- nl.openoffice.org -*- http://www.opentaal.org -*-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 07.06.2011 14:22, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 13:00, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>> If there was still too much concern about that, I could work on an
>>> improved
>>> list from a technical perspective and provide this list in a few days. I
>>> don't claim to reach perfection, but the result should be much closer to
>>> what we need.
>>>
>>
>> Mathias,
>>
>> It seems to me like that list would be helpful to have. If it's not
>> too much work, I think it would be great if you could put it together.
>
> OK. I hope to get it done until Thursday. In whatever time zone. :-)
As it seems, it's more work to do than expected. I'm still at it.
Regards,
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 07.06.2011 13:00, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> If there was still too much concern about that, I could work on an improved
>> list from a technical perspective and provide this list in a few days. I
>> don't claim to reach perfection, but the result should be much closer to
>> what we need.
>>
>
> Mathias,
>
> It seems to me like that list would be helpful to have. If it's not
> too much work, I think it would be great if you could put it together.
OK. I hope to get it done until Thursday. In whatever time zone. :-)
Regards,
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> If there was still too much concern about that, I could work on an improved
> list from a technical perspective and provide this list in a few days. I
> don't claim to reach perfection, but the result should be much closer to
> what we need.
>
Mathias,
It seems to me like that list would be helpful to have. If it's not
too much work, I think it would be great if you could put it together.
Thanks,
Noirin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 08.06.2011 00:37, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> Greg Stein<gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM:
>
>>
>> Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other
> owners
>> to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there
> holds
>> the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some
> definite
>> legwork, but it seems doable.
>
>
> I was assuming that the CWS's contributed to OOo were already covered
> under the JCA, Sun Contributor Agreement or Oracle Contributor Agreement,
> depending on the date:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment
>
> Or is that note the case? Anyone know?
With the usual reservation that you should not trust what people who
arent't legal practitioners tell you about licenses or copyright, you
are basically right.
Regards,
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:37 PM, <ro...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM:
>
> >
> > Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other
> owners
> > to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there
> holds
> > the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some
> definite
> > legwork, but it seems doable.
>
>
> I was assuming that the CWS's contributed to OOo were already covered
> under the JCA, Sun Contributor Agreement or Oracle Contributor Agreement,
> depending on the date:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment
>
> Or is that note the case? Anyone know?
>
Anything contributed would definitely fall into that category, yes. The only
possible exception would be work originating from Sun, which could
potentially be using code from other sources that Sun had sourced but not
yet got round to open sourcing. Sun had a rigorous process for ensuring all
inbound code was tracked and cleared before use. Code in this condition
would be capable of being open source licensed, so Oracle would be free to
simply include it in the grant too.
Net: I don't personally see any obstacles, apart from Oracle legal
satisfying themselves that all the processes had, in fact, been followed.
S.
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by ro...@us.ibm.com.
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote on 06/07/2011 05:50:49 PM:
>
> Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other
owners
> to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there
holds
> the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some
definite
> legwork, but it seems doable.
I was assuming that the CWS's contributed to OOo were already covered
under the JCA, Sun Contributor Agreement or Oracle Contributor Agreement,
depending on the date:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment
Or is that note the case? Anyone know?
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Besides the content Oracle owns, it seems we could just ask the other owners
to give the CWS's to the ASF. I mean, really... *somebody* out there holds
the copyright. We just have to determine who, and then ask. Some definite
legwork, but it seems doable.
On Jun 7, 2011 10:15 AM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the
> work-in-progress CWS[1] please?
>
> Thanks
>
> S.
>
> [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>
wrote:
>
>> It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
>> taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
>> This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
>> databases. I am following the discussions here closely,
>> and I am collected all of the lists that are provided.
>>
>> In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to
>> come up with an initial list of files, and so the list,
>> which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list.
>>
>> As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the
>> continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history
>> and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is
>> discussed in the podling documentation [3].
>>
>>
>>
>> references:
>> [1]
>>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BB9A.7040002@oracle.com%3E
>> [2]
>>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BD98.3050600@oracle.com%3E
>> [3]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
>>
>>
>> On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
>>>> to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files
>>>> in
>>>> the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
>>>> commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we
should
>>>> ask
>>>> you to seek?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make
>>> reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's
>>> power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent
>>> software grants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Simon Phipps
> +1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
Andrew Rist wrote:
> I'll quote my earlier answer [1] on that:
> Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with
> clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of
> licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit
> at a later stage of the project.
> (acknowledged - that was several hundred messages ago)
Thanks for the confirmation. I had indeed read this message and all the
several hundreds in between, but it seemed important enough to ask
explicitly again, especially considering that those statements haven't
been corrected and that the Oracle proprietary bits surely qualify for
the "clear provenance", so making them free software should not pose
particular problems.
Regards,
Andrea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
I'll quote my earlier answer [1] on that:
Our approach is to start with the main open source code - stuff with
clear provenance. The OOo extensions are more complex in terms of
licensing and other issues, but this is certainly something to revisit
at a later stage of the project.
(acknowledged - that was several hundred messages ago)
On 6/8/2011 1:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
> May I ask for a last clarification on the code covered by the Oracle
> grant? Some observers, like the Document Foundation [1] and Bradley Kuhn
> [2], seem to imply that the grant will also turn some proprietary
> software (components exclusive to "StarOffice - Oracle Open Office"
> perhaps? Or "Oracle Cloud Office"?) into free software: is this the case
> or, as it seems from the provided file list, all the code covered by the
> grant is already available as free (LGPL3) software?
>
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BD98.3050600@oracle.com%3E
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
On 07/06/2011 Andrew Rist wrote:
> We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo
> repositories.
As a longtime OpenOffice.org volunteer (mini-introduction: involved with
the OpenOffice.org project since 2003, main contributions in QA,
Localization and QA Tools, Italian Project Lead since 2005) I'm happy to
see Oracle finally answering questions on public lists.
May I ask for a last clarification on the code covered by the Oracle
grant? Some observers, like the Document Foundation [1] and Bradley Kuhn
[2], seem to imply that the grant will also turn some proprietary
software (components exclusive to "StarOffice - Oracle Open Office"
perhaps? Or "Oracle Cloud Office"?) into free software: is this the case
or, as it seems from the provided file list, all the code covered by the
grant is already available as free (LGPL3) software?
[1] http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/
[2] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html
Regards,
Andrea Pescetti.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Good to know, many thanks.
S.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com> wrote:
> We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo
> repositories.
>
> A.
>
>
>
> On 6/7/2011 10:14 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>> That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the
>> work-in-progress CWS[1] please?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> S.
>>
>> [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist<an...@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
>>> taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
>>> This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
>>> databases. I am following the discussions here closely,
>>> and I am collected all of the lists that are provided.
>>>
>>> In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to
>>> come up with an initial list of files, and so the list,
>>> which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list.
>>>
>>> As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the
>>> continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history
>>> and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is
>>> discussed in the podling documentation [3].
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> references:
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BB9A.7040002@oracle.com%3E
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BD98.3050600@oracle.com%3E
>>> [3]
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
>>>>> to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files
>>>>> in
>>>>> the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
>>>>> commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we
>>>>> should
>>>>> ask
>>>>> you to seek?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make
>>>> reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's
>>>> power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent
>>>> software grants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo
repositories.
A.
On 6/7/2011 10:14 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the
> work-in-progress CWS[1] please?
>
> Thanks
>
> S.
>
> [1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist<an...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
>> taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
>> This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
>> databases. I am following the discussions here closely,
>> and I am collected all of the lists that are provided.
>>
>> In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to
>> come up with an initial list of files, and so the list,
>> which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list.
>>
>> As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the
>> continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history
>> and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is
>> discussed in the podling documentation [3].
>>
>>
>>
>> references:
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BB9A.7040002@oracle.com%3E
>> [2]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BD98.3050600@oracle.com%3E
>> [3]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
>>
>>
>> On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
>>>> to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files
>>>> in
>>>> the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
>>>> commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should
>>>> ask
>>>> you to seek?
>>>>
>>> I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make
>>> reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's
>>> power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent
>>> software grants.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
That's very helpful, thanks Andrew. Will Oracle also be providing the
work-in-progress CWS[1] please?
Thanks
S.
[1] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1792694/cws.ods
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com> wrote:
> It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
> taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
> This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
> databases. I am following the discussions here closely,
> and I am collected all of the lists that are provided.
>
> In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to
> come up with an initial list of files, and so the list,
> which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list.
>
> As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for the
> continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history
> and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and is
> discussed in the podling documentation [3].
>
>
>
> references:
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BB9A.7040002@oracle.com%3E
> [2]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BD98.3050600@oracle.com%3E
> [3]
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
>
>
> On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
>>> to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files
>>> in
>>> the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
>>> commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should
>>> ask
>>> you to seek?
>>>
>>
>> I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make
>> reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's
>> power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent
>> software grants.
>>
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Simon Phipps
+1 415 683 7660 : www.webmink.com
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Now, the database with OOo is hsqldb, Java based, so assuming we want to run
> this on Apache Harmony, does the Java TCK becomes a test dependency of OOo?
No
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>.
On 06/07/2011 06:08 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
> taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
> This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
> databases. I am following the discussions here closely,
> and I am collected all of the lists that are provided.
>
> In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to
> come up with an initial list of files, and so the list,
> which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list.
>
> As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for
> the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history
> and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and
> is discussed in the podling documentation [3].
Now, the database with OOo is hsqldb, Java based, so assuming we want to
run this on Apache Harmony, does the Java TCK becomes a test dependency
of OOo?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Andrew Rist <an...@oracle.com>.
It is Oracle's intent to provide to ASF the files needed to build OOo,
taking into account licensing and ownership issues.
This includes binary artifacts such as the OOo artwork and translation
databases. I am following the discussions here closely,
and I am collected all of the lists that are provided.
In order to execute the standard ASF Software Grant we were required to
come up with an initial list of files, and so the list,
which has been distributed, is exactly that - an initial list.
As previous stated [1][2], Oracle wants to provide what is needed for
the continuity of the OOo project. In terms of svn history
and such, that becomes more of an issue for the podling to decide, and
is discussed in the podling documentation [3].
references:
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BB9A.7040002@oracle.com%3E
[2]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DE9BD98.3050600@oracle.com%3E
[3] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/mentor.html#initial-import-code-dump
On 6/7/2011 5:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>> It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
>> to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in
>> the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
>> commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask
>> you to seek?
>
> I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make
> reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's
> power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent
> software grants.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
> to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in
> the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
> commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask
> you to seek?
At the Apache Software Foundation, all contributions are entirely
voluntary. We do not seek commitments.
What we have today is a standard software grant. That grant contains
a list of files. You've seen the list of files.
We know this list to be incomplete. Employees of Oracle are
participating in the incubation. Those that do will be expected to
sign the ICLA which requires them to determine if a CCLA is required
and to obtain that too.
I will simply state again that it is my expectation that if we make
reasonable requests and that if those requests are within Oracle's
power to fulfill those requests, that we will obtain subsequent
software grants.
I will add that I won't be the one determining what files to request,
that would be the incubating podling should it be set up. I will
certainly help make any such requests end up with a positive outcome
for all concerned.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>
>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
>>> even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code
>>> from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will
>>> be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work
>>> out.
>>>
>>> Hi Mathias,
>>
>> hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the
>> work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to
>> replace all non-Oracle-owned code).
>>
>> Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle ("here we grant you
>> the hg repo bundle") admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket.
>>
>
> That's not possible as Oracle does not own the copyright for every file in
> the repository (example: dictionaries).
You are both right. It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in
the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask
you to seek?
> My approach would be to start with the whole list of files in the repo,
> remove all things I know that are problematic, create a diff to the list
> provided so far and have a second look on this difference list for possible
> "naughty bits".
>
> Everythings else (history etc.) can be sorted out later.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
>
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>> I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
>> even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code
>> from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will
>> be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work
>> out.
>>
> Hi Mathias,
>
> hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the
> work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to
> replace all non-Oracle-owned code).
>
> Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle ("here we grant you
> the hg repo bundle") admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket.
That's not possible as Oracle does not own the copyright for every file
in the repository (example: dictionaries). My approach would be to start
with the whole list of files in the repo, remove all things I know that
are problematic, create a diff to the list provided so far and have a
second look on this difference list for possible "naughty bits".
Everythings else (history etc.) can be sorted out later.
Regards,
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Thorsten Behrens <th...@documentfoundation.org>.
Mathias Bauer wrote:
> I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
> even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code
> from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will
> be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work
> out.
>
Hi Mathias,
hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the
work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to
replace all non-Oracle-owned code).
Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle ("here we grant you
the hg repo bundle") admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket.
Surely asking for the latter would be favourable for Apache, and
therefore something to at least try?
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 07.06.2011 06:01, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will
> vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's
> summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His
> summary ended with "Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver
> something that is even close to OOo as it is now." As I've said
> before, I don't want to see the project start off with an extremely
> large amount of work to do just to get something working. In later
> posts I see you got more files added to the list by Oracle and a list
> of more missing files from Simon. I would hope that the list of
> files to be delivered grows to the point where those far more
> familiar with the code than I am can verify it is at a reasonable
> starting point before we vote on this.
We have got the file list from Oracle that - as was mentioned here -
obviously was created under time pressure. My assumption is that the
person in charge to create it just grepped for copyright headers with
Oracle Copyright to make sure not to add any "nasty" files (at least
that's the way I would have done it under such circumstances). So it is
not surprising that no binary files exist in that list, e.g. no art work.
What we need is a list of OOo source files that are under Oracle's
copyright and that are needed to build the project.
I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code from
the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will be
provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work out.
If there was still too much concern about that, I could work on an
improved list from a technical perspective and provide this list in a
few days. I don't claim to reach perfection, but the result should be
much closer to what we need.
Regards,
Mathias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
>>> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But
>>> this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
>>
>> I'll share my understanding.
>>
>> My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not
>> accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious
>> consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and
>> Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving
>> this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list
>> to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later.
>>
>> This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with
>> lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent
>> via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to
>> either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline.
>>
>> My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains
>> only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under
>> incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to
>> include a standard ASF software grant.
>>
>> While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more,
>> and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this
>> comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at
>> Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith.
>>
>> It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if
>> those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests,
>> that we will obtain subsequent software grants.
>
> Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His summary ended with "Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver something that is even close to OOo as it is now." As I've said before, I don't want to see the project start off with an extremely large amount of work to do just to get something working. In later posts I see you got more files added to the list by Oracle and a list of more missing files from Simon. I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the point where those far more familiar with the code than I am can verify it is at a reasonable starting point before we vote on this.
I don't know what more I can say.
The entire OOo source code is available for inspection. Heck, the LO
source code is too, and some of the proposed committers will have
access to the Lotus offering.
What additional files should be requested? That's for the podling to decide.
Should the ASF start from a snapshot or attempt to pull over the full
version history? That's for the podling to decide.
Clearly not all of the files in the above set are made available under
terms that the ASF can make available under the terms of the Apache
License. Should the ASF reach out to the authors, find alternatives,
write new code in such instances? That's for the podling to decide.
Why hasn't the podling gotten started? Because we haven't voted on it.
At the present time there are 55 committers who would like to get
started, and 8 mentors willing to help. There clearly are some people
here who don't want to give these people an opportunity to do so. And
there clearly are some people who do.
>From my perspective, I can't see saying no to letting people spend
their time trying simply because they might fail.
> Ralph
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
>>
>> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
>> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But
>> this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
>
> I'll share my understanding.
>
> My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not
> accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious
> consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and
> Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving
> this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list
> to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later.
>
> This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with
> lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent
> via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to
> either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline.
>
> My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains
> only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under
> incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to
> include a standard ASF software grant.
>
> While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more,
> and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this
> comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at
> Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith.
>
> It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if
> those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests,
> that we will obtain subsequent software grants.
Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for the proposal. From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo source code. His summary ended with "Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver something that is even close to OOo as it is now." As I've said before, I don't want to see the project start off with an extremely large amount of work to do just to get something working. In later posts I see you got more files added to the list by Oracle and a list of more missing files from Simon. I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the point where those far more familiar with the code than I am can verify it is at a reasonable starting point before we vote on this.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
>
> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But
> this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
I'll share my understanding.
My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not
accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious
consideration. After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and
Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving
this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list
to start from. If we needed more, we could discuss that later.
This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May. After discussions with
lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent
via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day. Others with no association to
either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline.
My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains
only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under
incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to
include a standard ASF software grant.
While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more,
and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this
comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at
Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith.
It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if
those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests,
that we will obtain subsequent software grants.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Posted by Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com>.
Am 06.06.2011 12:02, schrieb Christian Lohmaier
> [...]
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> raw numbers:
> wc -l repo.lst sorted_ooo.lst
> 69076 repo.lst
> 39616 sorted_ooo.lst
>
> So even calling this "seems to include the full repo" and that even
> twice is either with malicious intent, or with no clue. Christian
> Lippka really should know better, but had stated this at least twice.
> Close to 30000 files gone, who cares "source seems complete"..
I never said I did an analysis on the files. This would have made no
sense since
as an oracle employee I'm missing an unbiased view even so I'm on this list
as an individual. My interest was just if this list contains additional
modules
not available at OOo which would have been an interesting FYI for others.
My apologies if my understanding of "seems" is imperfect as I'm not a
native speaker.
At least I haven't stated it thrice, who knows what I could have
sommoned :-)
While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested.
But this
must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
Regards,
Christian
Disclaimer: These are my opinions as an individual interested in the
future of an open source office suite. I do not speak for my current
employer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org