You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Bjoern Michaelsen <bj...@canonical.com> on 2012/07/03 13:17:56 UTC
CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Hi all,
back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would
be convenient not having to recreate. According to:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTikvBFNr1ViwqYw1+sPZf68ZX5GZ7g@mail.gmail.com%3E
ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions:
- Is this (my) work in this CWS released under AL2 to the public already with
this?
- If not and I do the work to re-base this CWS against master, and have it
checked into an Apache SVN branch will the work then be immediately
available under the ALv2 license?
Best,
Bjoern
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> Thanks for the constructive reply!
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> If the CWS was included in the original SGA then it is available under
>> the AL2.
>
> How can I check that? It was not integrated in m106 at OOo, if that is the
> criteria, but I assume there is more to that ;)
>
>> If it was not included in that original SGA, you want to bring it here and
>> the OpenOffice project want to see the work committed then Oracle will, in
>> all likelihood, make it available to us.
>
> Great!
>
>> Therefore, I suggest the following order of execution:
>> - determine whether the OpenOffice committers want the work
>
> Where would that be done?
>
>> - confirm that Oracle have already or will make the code available
>> under the AL2 at our request
>
> Are there established workflows for that, or should I just go about that ad-hoc?
>
>> - submit patches against AOO trunk
>
> Are the patches already released AL2 by Apache when they are published on the
> list then? Given that AOO might switch to the Symphony codebase and fail to
> even release a version with the patches against the original OOo, I would need
> that assureance that the effort to rebase the work is not in vain.
>
The particular circumstances you are in, and the task you are trying
to accomplish, is not necessarily covered by a specific single
process. So rather than focusing on process, I'd recommend
considering the overall forces at play and the known patterns for
resolving these forces.
If someone wants to contribute code to the project, then they need to
deal with three basic things:
a) Does the project want the code?
b) Technical integration
c) Getting the code under ALv2 or a compatible license.
This is true for committers as well. We all need to be concerned with
these questions. The main difference is that a committer operates
under Commit Then Review (CTR) rules.
#1 and #2 above are relatively easy. It is social and code. #3 is
not so much about a single process, but a logical argument. Someone
contributing code should have a logical argument for why the code is
properly licensed. There are several well-known conventions for
making this kind of argument, using procedures like an SGA. Even
committers implicitly make this argument whenever they check in code,
based on their iCLA obligations.
However, these procedures are neither necessary nor sufficient. But
they are well-known and following these conventions helps us all avoid
a lot of extra analysis. Of course, if necessary we'd be open to
considering other forms of argument aimed at proving the suitability
of license for a code contribution.
Back to your original question: An author posting original work to
the list, with an intent of contributing it to the project would
typically be accepted as an ALv2 contribution. An iCLA for the author
would be preferred for larger contributions, but an unambiguous
statement on the list (or in Bugzilla) is a good start.
But posting 3rd party code to the list, i.e., not original work, that
would probably raise a red flag.
Hope this helps.
-Rob
> Looking forward to hopefully some constructive cooperation.
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:44:30PM +0200, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> Thanks for the constructive reply!
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > If the CWS was included in the original SGA then it is available under
> > the AL2.
>
> How can I check that? It was not integrated in m106 at OOo, if that is the
> criteria, but I assume there is more to that ;)
besides the files listed on the SGA
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/pmc/ip-review/ Eike
Rathke, Mathias Bauer and Michael Stahl integrated some CWS last year,
their work got "documented" on the svn logs and this mailing list, see
for example this thread: http://markmail.org/message/3lqichu77wg3pfyu
I don't find swbookmarkfixes01 on the mail archive nor on the svn log.
So that CWS was not included on the original SGA nor in the code
integrated from CWSs.
> Given that AOO might switch to the Symphony codebase
This is a misinterpretation of the general outcome of this discussion:
http://markmail.org/message/wkcosra4s3wugtua
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mar 3/7/12, Bjoern Michaelsen ha scritto:
> Hi Ross,
>
> Thanks for the constructive reply!
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> > If the CWS was included in the original SGA then it is
> > available under the AL2.
>
> How can I check that? It was not integrated in m106 at OOo,
> if that is the criteria, but I assume there is more to that ;)
>
I don't think we committed it. You can review the SVN history
in fisheye, but it's probably easier to look at the code and
recognize it.
> > If it was not included in that original SGA, you want
> to bring it here and
> > the OpenOffice project want to see the work committed
> then Oracle will, in
> > all likelihood, make it available to us.
>
> Great!
>
> > Therefore, I suggest the following order of execution:
>
> > - determine whether the OpenOffice committers want the
> work
>
> Where would that be done?
>
Here. You may want to send us a description. If you prefer
you can handle it through a bugzilla issue.
> > - confirm that Oracle have already or will make the
> code available
> > under the AL2 at our request
>
> Are there established workflows for that, or should I just
> go about that ad-hoc?
>
ad-hoc. They are very cooperative.
> > - submit patches against AOO trunk
>
> Are the patches already released AL2 by Apache when they are
> published on the list then?
Unfortunately it's not that easy. The code is strictly under
ALv2 only when the code has been released by the ASF.
We are under incubation still so being strict that means
that you can only count with code officially reviewed by
the ASF IPMC and released.
> Given that AOO might switch to the Symphony codebase and fail to
> even release a version with the patches against the original
> OOo, I would need that assureance that the effort to rebase
> the work is not in vain.
>
I think the "effort to rebase" is actually pretty small as
we have avoided wild changes (precisely to ease code
merging). If we do rebase on Symphony (which is only
an option and not the most popular ATM), merging changes
from AOO is still relatively easy (I tried this myself
already).
I am going to be pretty honest with you (as with everyone).
We welcome new contributions, especially from people that
have experience with the codebase, but if the idea is simply
getting "your" code relicensed on the short term and leave
us with the problem of maintaining it or even worse, fixing
it, this is not going to work.
best regards,
Pedro.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Bjoern Michaelsen <bj...@canonical.com>.
Hi Ross,
Thanks for the constructive reply!
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> If the CWS was included in the original SGA then it is available under
> the AL2.
How can I check that? It was not integrated in m106 at OOo, if that is the
criteria, but I assume there is more to that ;)
> If it was not included in that original SGA, you want to bring it here and
> the OpenOffice project want to see the work committed then Oracle will, in
> all likelihood, make it available to us.
Great!
> Therefore, I suggest the following order of execution:
> - determine whether the OpenOffice committers want the work
Where would that be done?
> - confirm that Oracle have already or will make the code available
> under the AL2 at our request
Are there established workflows for that, or should I just go about that ad-hoc?
> - submit patches against AOO trunk
Are the patches already released AL2 by Apache when they are published on the
list then? Given that AOO might switch to the Symphony codebase and fail to
even release a version with the patches against the original OOo, I would need
that assureance that the effort to rebase the work is not in vain.
Looking forward to hopefully some constructive cooperation.
Best,
Bjoern
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Hi Bjoern,
If the CWS was included in the original SGA then it is available under
the AL2. If it was not included in that original SGA, you want to
bring it here and the OpenOffice project want to see the work
committed then Oracle will, in all likelihood, make it available to
us.
Therefore, I suggest the following order of execution:
- determine whether the OpenOffice committers want the work
- confirm that Oracle have already or will make the code available
under the AL2 at our request
- submit patches against AOO trunk
Ross
On 3 July 2012 12:17, Bjoern Michaelsen <bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would
> be convenient not having to recreate. According to:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTikvBFNr1ViwqYw1+sPZf68ZX5GZ7g@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions:
>
> - Is this (my) work in this CWS released under AL2 to the public already with
> this?
> - If not and I do the work to re-base this CWS against master, and have it
> checked into an Apache SVN branch will the work then be immediately
> available under the ALv2 license?
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I'd suggest being even more patient. In my experience people don't give
answers to general queries involving legal issues. A specific question,
like "please can we we have CWS foo since the community wishes to integrate
it" is more likely to get a response.
The general case, as far as we are aware, remains the same. Oracle have, so
far, never refused our requests when they have been specific and actionable.
Ross
On Jul 4, 2012 12:22 AM, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> ha scritto:
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> >>> ha scritto:
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please can we have an update on that effort to get
> >>> all the
> >>>>> CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly
> >>> reasonable
> >>>>> request, one I and others have been making here
> >>> since the
> >>>>> inception of the project and one I am not able to
> >>> go
> >>>>> negotiate personally so need to keep asking about
> >>> here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What effort?
> >>>
> >>> Mentioned in an e-mail linked from the OP, dated June 7,
> >>> 2011 - those of us inside the project have been raising this
> >>> topic from very early on, as you can see. Making it easy for
> >>> outside developers to meet their needs is a great way to
> >>> have them begin to join in and become insiders like you.
> >>>
> >>> The message is at
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DEE6C86.5070408@oracle.com%3E
> >>>
> >>> S.
> >>
> >> OK. I think that in that mail message "we" stands for Oracle,
> >> not for Apache, so you'd have to ask Andrew Rist with his
> >> Oracle hat.
> >>
> >
> > OK, thanks.
> >
> > Andrew, do you have an update on the outcome of your assertion "We are
> > trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo
> repositories"
> > (this was in the context of the CWSs) please?
>
> Please do be patient when waiting for a response, tomorrow is a holiday
> you may remember - US Independence Day. It's on a Wednesday and many people
> are taking time off this week. While the weather in most of the US is
> atrociously hot, it is absolutely perfect here on the Pacific Coast.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > S.
>
>
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> ha scritto:
>> ...
>>>
>>> On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
>>> ha scritto:
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Please can we have an update on that effort to get
>>> all the
>>>>> CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly
>>> reasonable
>>>>> request, one I and others have been making here
>>> since the
>>>>> inception of the project and one I am not able to
>>> go
>>>>> negotiate personally so need to keep asking about
>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What effort?
>>>
>>> Mentioned in an e-mail linked from the OP, dated June 7,
>>> 2011 - those of us inside the project have been raising this
>>> topic from very early on, as you can see. Making it easy for
>>> outside developers to meet their needs is a great way to
>>> have them begin to join in and become insiders like you.
>>>
>>> The message is at
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DEE6C86.5070408@oracle.com%3E
>>>
>>> S.
>>
>> OK. I think that in that mail message "we" stands for Oracle,
>> not for Apache, so you'd have to ask Andrew Rist with his
>> Oracle hat.
>>
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> Andrew, do you have an update on the outcome of your assertion "We are
> trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories"
> (this was in the context of the CWSs) please?
Please do be patient when waiting for a response, tomorrow is a holiday you may remember - US Independence Day. It's on a Wednesday and many people are taking time off this week. While the weather in most of the US is atrociously hot, it is absolutely perfect here on the Pacific Coast.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Cheers!
>
> S.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> ha scritto:
> ...
> >
> > On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> > ha scritto:
> > > ...
> > >>
> > >> Please can we have an update on that effort to get
> > all the
> > >> CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly
> > reasonable
> > >> request, one I and others have been making here
> > since the
> > >> inception of the project and one I am not able to
> > go
> > >> negotiate personally so need to keep asking about
> > here.
> > >>
> > >
> > > What effort?
> >
> > Mentioned in an e-mail linked from the OP, dated June 7,
> > 2011 - those of us inside the project have been raising this
> > topic from very early on, as you can see. Making it easy for
> > outside developers to meet their needs is a great way to
> > have them begin to join in and become insiders like you.
> >
> > The message is at
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DEE6C86.5070408@oracle.com%3E
> >
> > S.
>
> OK. I think that in that mail message "we" stands for Oracle,
> not for Apache, so you'd have to ask Andrew Rist with his
> Oracle hat.
>
OK, thanks.
Andrew, do you have an update on the outcome of your assertion "We are
trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in the OOo repositories"
(this was in the context of the CWSs) please?
Cheers!
S.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> ha scritto:
...
>
> On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> ha scritto:
> > ...
> >>
> >> Please can we have an update on that effort to get
> all the
> >> CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly
> reasonable
> >> request, one I and others have been making here
> since the
> >> inception of the project and one I am not able to
> go
> >> negotiate personally so need to keep asking about
> here.
> >>
> >
> > What effort?
>
> Mentioned in an e-mail linked from the OP, dated June 7,
> 2011 - those of us inside the project have been raising this
> topic from very early on, as you can see. Making it easy for
> outside developers to meet their needs is a great way to
> have them begin to join in and become insiders like you.
>
> The message is at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DEE6C86.5070408@oracle.com%3E
>
> S.
OK. I think that in that mail message "we" stands for Oracle,
not for Apache, so you'd have to ask Andrew Rist with his
Oracle hat.
We do have a nice relationship with Oracle and they have
always been very receptive with our requests so I certainly
recommend other communities to solve your issues and approach
them constructively.
FWIW, other ex-oracle employees have gotten CWSs successfully
included in our 3.4 release. AFAICT, all of them signed iCLAs
and were actively involved in the community getting their
patches cleaned up and working.
Pedro.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 3 Jul 2012, at 15:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
> --- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> ha scritto:
> ...
>>
>> Please can we have an update on that effort to get all the
>> CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly reasonable
>> request, one I and others have been making here since the
>> inception of the project and one I am not able to go
>> negotiate personally so need to keep asking about here.
>>
>
> What effort?
Mentioned in an e-mail linked from the OP, dated June 7, 2011 - those of us inside the project have been raising this topic from very early on, as you can see. Making it easy for outside developers to meet their needs is a great way to have them begin to join in and become insiders like you.
The message is at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3C4DEE6C86.5070408@oracle.com%3E
S.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mar 3/7/12, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> ha scritto:
...
>
> Please can we have an update on that effort to get all the
> CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly reasonable
> request, one I and others have been making here since the
> inception of the project and one I am not able to go
> negotiate personally so need to keep asking about here.
>
What effort?
I think we have been pretty consistent here every time the
subject is brought up by someone external to the project.
I am not a lawyer and neither is Rob or most of the people
doing development here and even if we were lawyers we have
no power to relicense code that isn't ours. In general we
don't release patches or CWSs other than what you see in
our releases (at this time 3.4 only).
Pedro.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 3 Jul 2012, at 14:19, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
> <bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:53:25AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
>>> <bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would
>>>> be convenient not having to recreate. According to:
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTikvBFNr1ViwqYw1+sPZf68ZX5GZ7g@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>
>>>> ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where do you read that? I don't see that statement. I see Andrew
>>> saying, "We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in
>>> the OOo repositories." "Trying" is not the same as an SGA. I'm
>>> trying to lose weight. But I can assure you my doctor will trust what
>>> the scale says more than my stated intentions.
Please can we have an update on that effort to get all the CWS made available then? It seems a perfectly reasonable request, one I and others have been making here since the inception of the project and one I am not able to go negotiate personally so need to keep asking about here.
S.
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:53:25AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
>> <bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would
>> > be convenient not having to recreate. According to:
>> >
>> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTikvBFNr1ViwqYw1+sPZf68ZX5GZ7g@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >
>> > ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions:
>> >
>>
>> Where do you read that? I don't see that statement. I see Andrew
>> saying, "We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in
>> the OOo repositories." "Trying" is not the same as an SGA. I'm
>> trying to lose weight. But I can assure you my doctor will trust what
>> the scale says more than my stated intentions.
>
> Your aggressive tone isnt helpful here, but if you want it like that -- fine:
> If you are "trying" to clarify the situation, you fail badly. You can easily
> correct that: Just state what exactly is covered by a SGA -- I can then ask
> Oracle directly to grant the rights for the stuff that is missing. As it, you
> make it appear as if the AOO project has no clue what parts of the old OOo code
> it actually owns.
>
Sorry, I thought you knew about the SGA(s) already. The files covered
by the Oracle SGA(s) are listed here:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/pmc/ip-review/
That is what was granted to Apache. Our 3.4 release was based on that
SGA, using the trunk version of those files. That is what we released
under ALv2. So in that sense the project very much has a clue what is
covered by ALv2. We did an extensive audit of this.
I don't think it is advisable to speculate beyond that, concerning
terms on files not included in the SGA, or terms on other revisions of
those files. What you need in that case is competent legal advice,
not some non-expert comment from someone on a mailing list. Or talk
to Oracle.
Regards,
-Rob
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Bjoern Michaelsen <bj...@canonical.com>.
Hi Olli,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:50:10PM +0200, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
> I did not see any aggressive tone in Rob's reply.
Nitpicking on irrelevant sideissues might be acceptable, if the main topics of
the mail were answered -- otherwise its just unconstructive passive aggreesion.
Nothing in Robs first email allowed help to get this CWS into AOO or clarify
the situation, so why bother with it at all?
Anyway. I feel I have better chances to get things done by dealing with Oracle
directly.
Best,
Bjoern
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <or...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Björn,
On 03.07.2012 14:58, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:53:25AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
>> <bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would
>>> be convenient not having to recreate. According to:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTikvBFNr1ViwqYw1+sPZf68ZX5GZ7g@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions:
>>>
>>
>> Where do you read that? I don't see that statement. I see Andrew
>> saying, "We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in
>> the OOo repositories." "Trying" is not the same as an SGA. I'm
>> trying to lose weight. But I can assure you my doctor will trust what
>> the scale says more than my stated intentions.
>
> Your aggressive tone isnt helpful here, but if you want it like that -- fine:
> If you are "trying" to clarify the situation, you fail badly. You can easily
> correct that: Just state what exactly is covered by a SGA -- I can then ask
> Oracle directly to grant the rights for the stuff that is missing. As it, you
> make it appear as if the AOO project has no clue what parts of the old OOo code
> it actually owns.
>
Come down a little bit.
I did not see any aggressive tone in Rob's reply.
He asked a question. Gives his view on the topic - more or less the facts he is
seeing. Then he uses a little story from his own life regarding term "Trying" in
order to express that measured numbers respectively contracts "count more" than
humans expressing their "Trying". I did not see any agressive words used by Rob
in the reply.
Best regards, Oliver.
>>> - Is this (my) work in this CWS released under AL2 to the public already with
>>> this?
>>> - If not and I do the work to re-base this CWS against master, and have it
>>> checked into an Apache SVN branch will the work then be immediately
>>> available under the ALv2 license?
>>>
>>
>> You say "(my) work". If it is indeed your IP, then you can do with it
>> as you wish, right?
>
> No. If you nitpick, get your facts right. The work was created as I was a
> german employee of Oracle. IANAL, but as Urheberrecht (copyright, the claim to
> authorship) is inalienable in Germany. At that point in time, Oracle had the
> exclusive right of use for the work, but AFAIK it is still _my_ work.
>
>> You could make it ALv2 with or without checking
>> it into SVN. But if it is not your IP, and your right to contribute
>> the code is questionable, then checking it into SVN would just provoke
>> someone to delete the code.
>
> How about, instead of wasting posts with sentences with way to many
> conditionals, you simply answer if this was covered by the SGA, so I know if I
> should hassle Oracle with that again (which I might or might not do as the CWS
> is hardly mission critcial). If I ask Oracle about this and it turns out Oracle
> already handed over code to AOO, but they had to burn ressources on that
> because AOO does not seem to be able to come clear with what it owns, that
> would throw a rather bad light on AOO, dont you think?
>
> But given the unconstructive reply here, I have to conclude AOO not even
> slighty interested in my casual contribution.
>
>> Also, isn't this essentially the same question that was raised by
>> Michael Meeks a couple of months ago? At that point I think the
>> recommendation was for RedHat or SUSE or TDF to talk to Oracle about
>> this, since they are the rights owner.
>
> Indeed this seem to be the way to go, I expect to receive a clear "yes" or "no"
> from that big corporation sooner that from AOO. Kinda sad and disillusional
> actually.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Bjoern Michaelsen <bj...@canonical.com>.
Hi Rob,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 07:53:25AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
> <bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would
> > be convenient not having to recreate. According to:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTikvBFNr1ViwqYw1+sPZf68ZX5GZ7g@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions:
> >
>
> Where do you read that? I don't see that statement. I see Andrew
> saying, "We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in
> the OOo repositories." "Trying" is not the same as an SGA. I'm
> trying to lose weight. But I can assure you my doctor will trust what
> the scale says more than my stated intentions.
Your aggressive tone isnt helpful here, but if you want it like that -- fine:
If you are "trying" to clarify the situation, you fail badly. You can easily
correct that: Just state what exactly is covered by a SGA -- I can then ask
Oracle directly to grant the rights for the stuff that is missing. As it, you
make it appear as if the AOO project has no clue what parts of the old OOo code
it actually owns.
> > - Is this (my) work in this CWS released under AL2 to the public already with
> > this?
> > - If not and I do the work to re-base this CWS against master, and have it
> > checked into an Apache SVN branch will the work then be immediately
> > available under the ALv2 license?
> >
>
> You say "(my) work". If it is indeed your IP, then you can do with it
> as you wish, right?
No. If you nitpick, get your facts right. The work was created as I was a
german employee of Oracle. IANAL, but as Urheberrecht (copyright, the claim to
authorship) is inalienable in Germany. At that point in time, Oracle had the
exclusive right of use for the work, but AFAIK it is still _my_ work.
> You could make it ALv2 with or without checking
> it into SVN. But if it is not your IP, and your right to contribute
> the code is questionable, then checking it into SVN would just provoke
> someone to delete the code.
How about, instead of wasting posts with sentences with way to many
conditionals, you simply answer if this was covered by the SGA, so I know if I
should hassle Oracle with that again (which I might or might not do as the CWS
is hardly mission critcial). If I ask Oracle about this and it turns out Oracle
already handed over code to AOO, but they had to burn ressources on that
because AOO does not seem to be able to come clear with what it owns, that
would throw a rather bad light on AOO, dont you think?
But given the unconstructive reply here, I have to conclude AOO not even
slighty interested in my casual contribution.
> Also, isn't this essentially the same question that was raised by
> Michael Meeks a couple of months ago? At that point I think the
> recommendation was for RedHat or SUSE or TDF to talk to Oracle about
> this, since they are the rights owner.
Indeed this seem to be the way to go, I expect to receive a clear "yes" or "no"
from that big corporation sooner that from AOO. Kinda sad and disillusional
actually.
Best,
Bjoern
Re: CWS swbookmarkfixes01 rebasing and licensing
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bj...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> back in my Oracle days I did some work in CWS swbookmarkfixes01 which would
> be convenient not having to recreate. According to:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/%3CBANLkTikvBFNr1ViwqYw1+sPZf68ZX5GZ7g@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> ownership of the CWS is now at ASF. So two simple questions:
>
Where do you read that? I don't see that statement. I see Andrew
saying, "We are trying to provide all of the Oracle owned content in
the OOo repositories." "Trying" is not the same as an SGA. I'm
trying to lose weight. But I can assure you my doctor will trust what
the scale says more than my stated intentions.
> - Is this (my) work in this CWS released under AL2 to the public already with
> this?
> - If not and I do the work to re-base this CWS against master, and have it
> checked into an Apache SVN branch will the work then be immediately
> available under the ALv2 license?
>
You say "(my) work". If it is indeed your IP, then you can do with it
as you wish, right? You could make it ALv2 with or without checking
it into SVN. But if it is not your IP, and your right to contribute
the code is questionable, then checking it into SVN would just provoke
someone to delete the code.
In any case, the act of checking in the code does not give the
committer any more rights to set a license on the code then they
started with.
Also, isn't this essentially the same question that was raised by
Michael Meeks a couple of months ago? At that point I think the
recommendation was for RedHat or SUSE or TDF to talk to Oracle about
this, since they are the rights owner.
-Rob
> Best,
>
> Bjoern