You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> on 2012/04/19 18:24:58 UTC
CWS licensing query ...
Hi there,
Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we
have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child
Workspaces (branches in Mercurial).
It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing
patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the
AL2, would also be available under the AL2.
Is that the case ? reading:
https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html
I see:
"The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the
first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th,
2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection
by Apache Members."
"The list of files covered by each of these grants, were
extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_"
Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of
questions:
1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
them ?
2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ?
(prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only'
restriction that is presumed.
Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the
code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around
those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080.
It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just
missed an existing one, help appreciated !
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
>>>>> beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
>>>>> them ?
>>>>
>>>> The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge,
>>> ...
>>>> The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files
>>>> you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those
>>>> too.
>>>
>>> Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern.
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my
>>>> guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history
>>>> too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant
>>>> covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us.
>>>
>>> Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied
>>> to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics
>>> went on there) ?
>>>
>>
>> This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we
>> imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure
>> it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find
>> the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching
>> for "svn import".
>>
>>>> The signed documents are private because they contain private contact
>>>> details, however the text is at
>>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>>
>>>> If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on
>>>> the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to
>>>> post to legal-discuss@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be
>>>> happy to respond.
>>>
>>> I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the
>>> archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser).
>>>
>>> Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I
>>> just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only
>>> important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the
>>> license headers.
>>>
>>> As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that
>>> Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is
>>> left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an
>>> unclear state.
>>>
>>> In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally
>>> licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based
>>> (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the
>>> process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so,
>>> how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on
>>> what exact versions of what are granted ].
>>>
>>> Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the
>>> license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS'
>>> that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining
>>> the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be
>>> having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of
>>> them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant
>>> by eg. the tooltypes changes.
>>>
>>> IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from
>>> Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like:
>>>
>>> "all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial
>>> repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2"
>>>
>>> or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new
>>> files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess.
>>> Anyhow - most interested in the status of those.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside
>>>> from aw080?
>>>
>>> I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list,
>>> there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there -
>>> everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake.
>>>
>>> I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand
>>> it in more detail.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the
>> status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an
>> official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache
>> source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review
>> and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on
>> source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any
>> official statement on code that is not in a release.
>
> I think he is asking about this:
>
> URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080
OK. So this code is not in a release. So it has not been formally
reviewed or voted on. When a committer merges that branch into the
trunk and we include it in an RC, then we'll need to take a closer
look. But neither of these have occurred.
But interesting questions, for another day.
-Rob
> Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
> Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
> Revision: 1328172
> Node Kind: directory
> Schedule: normal
> Last Changed Author: alg
> Last Changed Rev: 1327856
> Last Changed Date: 2012-04-19 01:04:51 -0700 (Thu, 19 Apr 2012)
>
> David-Fishers-MacBook-Air:aw080 dave$ svn log .
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r1327856 | alg | 2012-04-19 01:04:51 -0700 (Thu, 19 Apr 2012) | 1 line
>
> aw080: fixes in svx, sd, stabilizing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r1327190 | alg | 2012-04-17 10:23:56 -0700 (Tue, 17 Apr 2012) | 1 line
>
> aw080: stabilizing sw, sd and sc, changes to svx.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r1326092 | alg | 2012-04-14 05:17:53 -0700 (Sat, 14 Apr 2012) | 1 line
>
> Resync to current trunc
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r1205821 | alg | 2011-11-24 05:24:08 -0800 (Thu, 24 Nov 2011) | 1 line
>
> aw080: Initial commit of adapted aw080 cws. This is work in progress, do not use yet. It is about changing the DrawingLayer core (model, view and controller) to transformations and double precision graphic content
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r1205438 | alg | 2011-11-23 07:25:17 -0800 (Wed, 23 Nov 2011) | 1 line
>
> aw080: Creating a work branch for the longtime project to bring the drawinglayer core to double precision and transformations
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Michael.
>>>
>>> --
>>> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>>>
>
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On May 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
>>>> beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
>>>> them ?
>>>
>>> The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge,
>> ...
>>> The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files
>>> you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those
>>> too.
>>
>> Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern.
>>
>>> I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my
>>> guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history
>>> too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant
>>> covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us.
>>
>> Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied
>> to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics
>> went on there) ?
>>
>
> This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we
> imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure
> it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find
> the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching
> for "svn import".
>
>>> The signed documents are private because they contain private contact
>>> details, however the text is at
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>>> If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on
>>> the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to
>>> post to legal-discuss@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be
>>> happy to respond.
>>
>> I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the
>> archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser).
>>
>> Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I
>> just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only
>> important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the
>> license headers.
>>
>> As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that
>> Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is
>> left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an
>> unclear state.
>>
>> In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally
>> licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based
>> (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the
>> process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so,
>> how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on
>> what exact versions of what are granted ].
>>
>> Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the
>> license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS'
>> that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining
>> the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be
>> having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of
>> them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant
>> by eg. the tooltypes changes.
>>
>> IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from
>> Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like:
>>
>> "all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial
>> repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2"
>>
>> or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new
>> files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess.
>> Anyhow - most interested in the status of those.
>>
>> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside
>>> from aw080?
>>
>> I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list,
>> there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there -
>> everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake.
>>
>> I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand
>> it in more detail.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the
> status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an
> official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache
> source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review
> and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on
> source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any
> official statement on code that is not in a release.
I think he is asking about this:
URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080
Repository Root: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf
Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
Revision: 1328172
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: alg
Last Changed Rev: 1327856
Last Changed Date: 2012-04-19 01:04:51 -0700 (Thu, 19 Apr 2012)
David-Fishers-MacBook-Air:aw080 dave$ svn log .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1327856 | alg | 2012-04-19 01:04:51 -0700 (Thu, 19 Apr 2012) | 1 line
aw080: fixes in svx, sd, stabilizing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1327190 | alg | 2012-04-17 10:23:56 -0700 (Tue, 17 Apr 2012) | 1 line
aw080: stabilizing sw, sd and sc, changes to svx.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1326092 | alg | 2012-04-14 05:17:53 -0700 (Sat, 14 Apr 2012) | 1 line
Resync to current trunc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1205821 | alg | 2011-11-24 05:24:08 -0800 (Thu, 24 Nov 2011) | 1 line
aw080: Initial commit of adapted aw080 cws. This is work in progress, do not use yet. It is about changing the DrawingLayer core (model, view and controller) to transformations and double precision graphic content
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1205438 | alg | 2011-11-23 07:25:17 -0800 (Wed, 23 Nov 2011) | 1 line
aw080: Creating a work branch for the longtime project to bring the drawinglayer core to double precision and transformations
Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael.
>>
>> --
>> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>>
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
>> > 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
>> > beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
>> > them ?
>>
>> The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge,
> ...
>> The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files
>> you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those
>> too.
>
> Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern.
>
>> I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my
>> guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history
>> too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant
>> covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us.
>
> Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied
> to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics
> went on there) ?
>
This was all done openly on the list. You can the details of how we
imported the code if you consult the list archives. I'm pretty sure
it would take me approximately the same time as it would you to find
the relevant posts, so I won't deny you the experience. Try searching
for "svn import".
>> The signed documents are private because they contain private contact
>> details, however the text is at
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on
>> the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to
>> post to legal-discuss@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be
>> happy to respond.
>
> I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the
> archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser).
>
> Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I
> just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only
> important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the
> license headers.
>
> As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that
> Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is
> left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an
> unclear state.
>
> In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally
> licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based
> (by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the
> process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so,
> how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on
> what exact versions of what are granted ].
>
> Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the
> license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS'
> that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining
> the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be
> having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of
> them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant
> by eg. the tooltypes changes.
>
> IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from
> Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like:
>
> "all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial
> repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2"
>
> or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new
> files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess.
> Anyhow - most interested in the status of those.
>
> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside
>> from aw080?
>
> I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list,
> there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there -
> everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake.
>
> I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand
> it in more detail.
>
I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are not asking about the
status of code in a release, then I don't think you can expect an
official answer from us. Remember, what gives the blessing to Apache
source distributions is the vote that culminates a process of review
and approval of that release. We might individually have opinions on
source that is not in a release. But we're not going to make any
official statement on code that is not in a release.
-Rob
> Thanks,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>
Re: CWS licensing / summary ...
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 4 May 2012 12:07, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> The replies so far seem to suggest that it is normal and acceptable for
> code available from the tip of an active branch, from the Apache project
> svn with an AL2 header on it, to not be under AL2. Is that correct ?
Whilst in the Incubator and *not* in a release, yes that is correct.
Upon graduation such incompatibly licensed code will either be removed
or will be licensed under the AL2. Which happens depends on what the
contributors to the AOO project want to make happen.
>> I believe the original question has been answered here and guidance
>> has already been provided on how to identify and fill any *specific*
>> holes an individual might see.
>
> Perhaps you missed this question which is: How is this code and others
> not mentioned in the SCA going to end up under AL2 ?
That was answered. I said if something is missing then make a specific
proposal and if the community agrees it's needed then we'll deal with
it.
> I am interested in re-basing the LibreOffice project on something based
> on this AL2 codebase.
Sound great.
>
> I am happy to put work into identifying those CWS' extracting them as
> patches, etc.
Looking forward to it.
> I hear and conclude two things:
>
> 1. that you are utterly uninterested in helping us re-base
That is a misrepresentation of what people said. A correct summary
would be that if you have specific CWSs that need to be brought over
and you are prepared to put the work into making it happen then your
contributions will be welcomed. The only exception to this would be if
the *majority* of the community (since code cannot be vetoed in Apache
projects) felt that it was inappropriate for some reason.
> and/or
>
> 2. that any attempt for us to engage constructively to
> identify and move code forwards ourselves -will-
> -inevitably- require us to become a 'contributor'
That is the only way to ensure it happens, yes. The alternative, as
explained, is to raise an issue and hope someone else has the time and
motivation to do the work for you.This is, as you know, the same in
pretty much all open source projects.
Ross
Re: CWS licensing / summary ...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrew / Ross,
>
> Lets try to get to the bottom of this.
>
> On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> If anyone on this list believes a *specific* CWS is valuable as the
>> project as it moves forwards then here is what to do...
>>
>> Go to our repository and look to see if it is already there (Dave gave
>> an example in this thread).
>
> Right - Dave kindly pointed at this repository:
>
> URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080
>
> And the commit log, which shows Oracle owned code released under the
> LGPLv3, for which there is (apparently) no grant, with IBM code layered
> top of it, having AL2 headers. That seems anomalous to me.
>
> I asked for clarity on the licensing of that code -not- to obstruct it
> in any way (as I said, I think it's important), but as an example to
> better understand the process of including code from Oracle that is
> apparently not covered by the SGA. Norbert pointed out that this is not
> an academic consideration as of today.
>
> The replies so far seem to suggest that it is normal and acceptable for
> code available from the tip of an active branch, from the Apache project
> svn with an AL2 header on it, to not be under AL2. Is that correct ?
>
It is common for podlings to have code in a variety of licenses and
for that to be reviewed and brought into conformance with Apache
licensing policy as it moves towards release and as the podling moves
toward graduation. In fact that is one of the core purposes of
incubation.
>> I believe the original question has been answered here and guidance
>> has already been provided on how to identify and fill any *specific*
>> holes an individual might see.
>
> Perhaps you missed this question which is: How is this code and others
> not mentioned in the SCA going to end up under AL2 ?
>
> Why do I spend my time asking such questions ? is it merely to annoy ?
> certainly not, and I'm sorry if it comes over that way.
>
> I am interested in re-basing the LibreOffice project on something based
> on this AL2 codebase. Having a small number of branches (CWS) also
> available under AL2 would (probably) help that process - I havn't
> finished my analysis to find out which, but given the general latency of
> these discussions I thought it wise to inquire ahead of time about *how
> that process works*.
>
> I am happy to put work into identifying those CWS' extracting them as
> patches, etc. however - in order to engage constructively, and in an
> un-ambiguous way (ie. one that cannot be portrayed as support for this
> incubator project) - I need to know about the process here.
>
> When I read Rob's mail:
>
> On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 14:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> When a committer merges that branch into the trunk and we include it
>> in an RC, then we'll need to take a closer look. But neither of these
>> have occurred.
>>
>> But interesting questions, for another day.
>
Indeed. I don't know if you noticed, but we're in the middle of
putting out our AOO 3.4 release. This is a big deal here, and our
volunteers are very busy with launch-related activities. Although I
cannot speak for everyone, my guess is that your hypothetical will not
get much attention from project volunteers for a couple of weeks.
> Dismissing the issue, no doubt he is busy, and I read yours:
>
> On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> This is how an ASF project works, everyone is welcome.to contribute.
> ...
>> I'm looking forward to seeing some new contributors emerge.
>
> I hear and conclude two things:
>
> 1. that you are utterly uninterested in helping us re-base
>
> and/or
>
> 2. that any attempt for us to engage constructively to
> identify and move code forwards ourselves -will-
> -inevitably- require us to become a 'contributor' and
> suffer from have our intentions widely mis-represented
> both publicly and privately.
>
I certainly don't want you to suffer for being thought of as
contributing to Apache OpenOffice. But I should warn you in advance
that many consider constructive comments on the mailing list to be a
form of contribution. So you may want to check with a doctor. You
may already be a contributor.
> Probably I mis-hear; if not it would be good to clarify that.
>
I think it is merely a matter of current volunteer priorities due to
immediate-term urgent project activities related to the AOO 3.4
launch. If you don't get a clearer response, I'd recommend trying
again in a couple of weeks.
-Rob
> Thanks,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>
CWS licensing / summary ...
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Andrew / Ross,
Lets try to get to the bottom of this.
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> If anyone on this list believes a *specific* CWS is valuable as the
> project as it moves forwards then here is what to do...
>
> Go to our repository and look to see if it is already there (Dave gave
> an example in this thread).
Right - Dave kindly pointed at this repository:
URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080
And the commit log, which shows Oracle owned code released under the
LGPLv3, for which there is (apparently) no grant, with IBM code layered
top of it, having AL2 headers. That seems anomalous to me.
I asked for clarity on the licensing of that code -not- to obstruct it
in any way (as I said, I think it's important), but as an example to
better understand the process of including code from Oracle that is
apparently not covered by the SGA. Norbert pointed out that this is not
an academic consideration as of today.
The replies so far seem to suggest that it is normal and acceptable for
code available from the tip of an active branch, from the Apache project
svn with an AL2 header on it, to not be under AL2. Is that correct ?
> I believe the original question has been answered here and guidance
> has already been provided on how to identify and fill any *specific*
> holes an individual might see.
Perhaps you missed this question which is: How is this code and others
not mentioned in the SCA going to end up under AL2 ?
Why do I spend my time asking such questions ? is it merely to annoy ?
certainly not, and I'm sorry if it comes over that way.
I am interested in re-basing the LibreOffice project on something based
on this AL2 codebase. Having a small number of branches (CWS) also
available under AL2 would (probably) help that process - I havn't
finished my analysis to find out which, but given the general latency of
these discussions I thought it wise to inquire ahead of time about *how
that process works*.
I am happy to put work into identifying those CWS' extracting them as
patches, etc. however - in order to engage constructively, and in an
un-ambiguous way (ie. one that cannot be portrayed as support for this
incubator project) - I need to know about the process here.
When I read Rob's mail:
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 14:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> When a committer merges that branch into the trunk and we include it
> in an RC, then we'll need to take a closer look. But neither of these
> have occurred.
>
> But interesting questions, for another day.
Dismissing the issue, no doubt he is busy, and I read yours:
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 09:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> This is how an ASF project works, everyone is welcome.to contribute.
...
> I'm looking forward to seeing some new contributors emerge.
I hear and conclude two things:
1. that you are utterly uninterested in helping us re-base
and/or
2. that any attempt for us to engage constructively to
identify and move code forwards ourselves -will-
-inevitably- require us to become a 'contributor' and
suffer from have our intentions widely mis-represented
both publicly and privately.
Probably I mis-hear; if not it would be good to clarify that.
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
A small number of people have approached me offlist, as a mentor, with
concerns that the PPMC might be missing important CWSs. As a mentor I
want to make it clear I have *no* opinion on the technical aspect of
this project and the communications have not included any specific
requests. Personally I feel the message in my text below has already
been communicated. However, since I have offlist communications I will
speak onlist in reply and thus make this opinion explicit.
If anyone on this list believes a *specific* CWS is valuable as the
project as it moves forwards then here is what to do...
Go to our repository and look to see if it is already there (Dave gave
an example in this thread).
Remember, as Rob and Pedro point out absence from the 3.4 release does
not mean absence from our repositories so please check this first.
If it is not there please check our mail archives, as Rob suggests, to
see if the CWS was not included for good reason (if it was not
explicitly discussed it may have been missed).
If you still believe it is being missed (or you have new input to the
discussion) post in a *new* thread saying "I believe XYZ is important,
how do I go about ensuring the code lands here". In that thread build
consensus that the code is needed and seek guidance on how to get it.
Then do the work and bring the code over.
This is how an ASF project works. There are some things you won't be
able to do but you will find that doing the parts you are able to do
will help ensure someone is willing to step forward to do the rest of
the work.
If you don't have the time to do the work feel free to raise an issue
on the issue tracker. Hopefully someone with more time and similar
views will be available to do the work. But we promise nothing, we are
all volunteers here. The only way to guarantee results is to do it
yourself.
This is how an ASF project works, everyone is welcome.to contribute.
Valuable contributions include making *specific* requests via the
issue tracker, even more valuable is doing the work to close the
issue.
To close. let me repeat that as a mentor (which is why I've been
contacted offlist) I believe the original question has been answered
here and guidance has already been provided on how to identify and
fill any *specific* holes an individual might see. I'm looking forward
to seeing some new contributors emerge.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
On 1 May 2012 21:22, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 05/01/12 12:07, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>
>
>> or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting
>> new
>> files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess.
>> Anyhow - most interested in the status of those.
>
>
> Of course we don't "release" CWSs at all, those would have to find
> their way into working code first.
>
>
>> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside
>>> from aw080?
>>
>> I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the
>> list,
>> there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there -
>> everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake.
>
>
> I understand you have been cautious,
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-October/019057.html
> and that's really good.
>
> I can see we will not be adopting them all. I think, for example, part
> of the accessibility stuff may be obsoleted by IBM's code, so if you
> really want to relicense all your code it may be easier to revert that
> and sync at a later time with AOO (good thing you are using git).
>
>
>> I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to
>> understand
>> it in more detail.
>
> We have no plan.
>
> For 3.4, it's too late but please do provide a list of the CWSs you are
> using
> in LibreOffice with a short description and we will eventually see what we
> can provide in future AOO releases. Of course, if you sign an iCLA you
> can help things go faster :).
>
> Pedro.
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
On 05/01/12 12:07, Michael Meeks wrote:
> ...
>
>
> or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new
> files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess.
> Anyhow - most interested in the status of those.
Of course we don't "release" CWSs at all, those would have to find
their way into working code first.
> On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote:
>> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside
>> from aw080?
> I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list,
> there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there -
> everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake.
I understand you have been cautious,
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-October/019057.html
and that's really good.
I can see we will not be adopting them all. I think, for example, part
of the accessibility stuff may be obsoleted by IBM's code, so if you
really want to relicense all your code it may be easier to revert that
and sync at a later time with AOO (good thing you are using git).
> I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand
> it in more detail.
We have no plan.
For 3.4, it's too late but please do provide a list of the CWSs you are
using
in LibreOffice with a short description and we will eventually see what we
can provide in future AOO releases. Of course, if you sign an iCLA you
can help things go faster :).
Pedro.
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 22:59 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> > 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
> > beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
> > them ?
>
> The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge,
...
> The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files
> you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those
> too.
Thanks; the list of files is not my prime concern.
> I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my
> guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history
> too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant
> covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us.
Gosh; that is rather an important difference. What files were supplied
to you ? (were they not all checked into svn by Rob ? - what mechanics
went on there) ?
> The signed documents are private because they contain private contact
> details, however the text is at
Fair enough.
> If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on
> the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to
> post to legal-discuss@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be
> happy to respond.
I am then curious about things like the aw080 branch. I searched the
archive as Dave Fisher recommended (but am none the wiser).
Armin's work is important to the future of both projects (or perhaps I
just like Armin's work generally :-) - but it is by no means the only
important thing that was not been merged by the time Andrew changed the
license headers.
As such, I'd like to know what the situation is for the work that
Oracle has done, that (apparently) is/was not covered by the SGA, and is
left lying around in a large number of mercurial branches (or CWS) in an
unclear state.
In the aw080 case, we currently see work owned by Oracle, originally
licensed under the LGPLv3 only, with IBM work done on top, then re-based
(by IBM?) on top of an AL2 base loosing the LGPLv3 headers in the
process, now suggesting that the work is AL2 licensed; is it ? if so,
how is/was that process documented ? [ it'd be great to have clarity on
what exact versions of what are granted ].
Given the large number of files, and the general PITA that doing the
license header changes is; and given the large number of useful CWS'
that can still be merged, what mechanism will be used for determining
the licensing of those files ? About the worst I can imagine would be
having a poor individual from Oracle trying to do the re-base of each of
them on top of the AL2 code-base - something made even more unpleasant
by eg. the tooltypes changes.
IMHO of course, by far the easiest way would be some formulation from
Oracle / SGA etc. that said something like:
"all versions of the listed files in branches from the mercurial
repository are licensed to Apache under the AL2"
or something - though, clearly there are prolly some interesting new
files there too - which would fall foul of the list in the SGA I guess.
Anyhow - most interested in the status of those.
On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 23:13 +0200, Rob Weir wrote:
> Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside
> from aw080?
I havn't done a complete audit yet; but when I last reviewed the list,
there were rather a large number of useful bits of code there -
everything from bug-fixes, to new features, to porting to gnumake.
I assume you have a plan for rescuing that, it'd be great to understand
it in more detail.
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 19 April 2012 17:24, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
> beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
> them ?
The SGAs signed by Oracle are, to the best of my knowledge,
unmodified. The source text can be found at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
The scope does not extend beyond the listed files. If there are files
you think are needed we can talk to Oracle to see if we can have those
too.
I'm not sure whether it covers just one version or all versions, my
guess is if we were given history then it would extend to that history
too but that is my *guess* only. What is certain is that the grant
covers all IP in the files listed and supplied to us.
> 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ?
> (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only'
> restriction that is presumed.
The signed documents are private because they contain private contact
details, however the text is at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt. This is the text of
the SGA signed by Oracle as I note above.
> It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just
> missed an existing one, help appreciated !
If you need a firmer/clearer statement than that (i.e. from someone on
the legal committee rather than an observer like me) then feel free to
post to legal-discuss@apache.org where our VP Legal Affairs will be
happy to respond.
Ross
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Michael,
On Apr 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we
> have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child
> Workspaces (branches in Mercurial).
>
> It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing
> patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the
> AL2, would also be available under the AL2.
>
> Is that the case ? reading:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html
>
> I see:
>
> "The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the
> first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th,
> 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection
> by Apache Members."
>
> "The list of files covered by each of these grants, were
> extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_"
>
> Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of
> questions:
>
> 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
> beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
> them ?
>
> 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ?
> (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only'
> restriction that is presumed.
Good questions. I can partially answer: "Members only" refers to an Apache Software Foundation Members private area.
>
> Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the
> code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around
> those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080.
Armin has been working on aw080 in a branch here at AOO: incubator/ooo/branches/alg/aw080
I know that people have made sure they have copies of mercurial.
>
> It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just
> missed an existing one, help appreciated !
Maybe search the archives for aw080?
This is the help I can provide perhaps others will answer further.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>
Re: CWS licensing query ...
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Just digging through the code looking at some (re)-licensing issues we
> have to deal with, and I'm wondering about the license of code in Child
> Workspaces (branches in Mercurial).
>
> It would be my hope (and for both project's benefit) that existing
> patches (ie. CWS), to the code that Oracle has contributed under the
> AL2, would also be available under the AL2.
>
I'm glad to hear that you are supportive of the Apache license and see
its benefits.
> Is that the case ? reading:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/summary-of-apache-openoffice-34-ip-review-activities.html
>
> I see:
>
> "The ASF received two Software Grant Agreements from Oracle, the
> first on June 1st, 2011 and a supplemental one on October 17th,
> 2011. Presumably these agreements are available for inspection
> by Apache Members."
>
> "The list of files covered by each of these grants, were
> extracted from the SGA and can be found in _these files_"
>
> Which seems to just have flat lists of files, and I had a couple of
> questions:
>
> 1. Are those SGA's unmodified, and/or does the scope extend
> beyond the plain list of files, and just one version of
> them ?
>
> 2. Is the text of these SGA's made public somewhere ?
> (prolly a FAQ) I'm confused by this 'Members only'
> restriction that is presumed.
>
The SGA is schedule B of the CCLA. You can read it here:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
But something to remember is that an SGA is not the only way code can
get under the Apache license.
> Anyhow - glad to see Oracle has got close to the end of getting the
> code out there: good stuff. It'd be nice to get some clarity around
> those CWS' that are not yet merged, eg. Armin's nice work in CWS aw080.
>
> It'd be really useful to have a statement on that - or perhaps I just
> missed an existing one, help appreciated !
>
Were there any other specific CWS's that you are interested in, aside
from aw080?
Regards,
-Rob
> Thanks,
>
> Michael.
>
> --
> michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
>