|| ||Rob Weir <robweir-AT-apache.org> |
|| ||ooo-dev-AT-incubator.apache.org |
|| ||Re: LibreOffice relicensing efforts |
|| ||Thu, 24 May 2012 07:58:30 -0400|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Michael Meeks <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 22:31 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> It seems to be based on an interesting theory about what an SGA
>> actually does. It seems to assume that the SGA itself puts the code
>> under the Apache License.
> Ah - I can see how you get there from the pre-amble; the emphasis there
> is to re-iterate (and credit?) the ultimate origin of the vast bulk of
> the code, not to detail the precise mechanics, sorry if that is unclear.
> Clearly we'll be basing on the released version of Apache OpenOffice
> (incubating) under the AL2, those that have been through the IPMC vote &
Your note to legal-discuss starts with:
"We are doing the ground-work for file-by-file, incremental
re-basing of our work on top of the same code release by Oracle under
the Apache License 2.0."
If your intent is actually to rebase on some other target, you may
want to be explicit. Your note here suggests "clean, released AL2
licensed base" -- we would refer to that as "Apache OpenOffice 3.4".
> In future, moving ahead, it would seem reasonable to assume that code
> commits to the trunk branch, made on top of the clean, released AL2
> licensed base are also licensed under the AL2. I assume it is the
> intention of the project to do that. Indeed it alway seems somewhat
> strange to me to argue that such Work made available under the License
> as indicated by a suitable AL2 notice, is -not- under the AL2. However,
> clarity there is irrelevant to this process at this time.
Code that individual committers check in, unless stated otherwise, is
ALv2. But there will be code that is checked in that is not (yet)
ALv2. For example, when granted code is checked in, it is initially
for purposes of IP Clearance, the process that will vet the code,
update the headers, check 3rd party dependencies for compatibility,
figure out ramifications for LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc. Such
granted code is checked in with the expectation that it will end up as
ALv2, but also knowing that it requires review. But this IP Clearance
procedure would not occur in the trunk.
>> Ultimately, basing a LO license rebasing on a pre-IP review,
>> pre-release version of AOO is not recommended.
> So again, that is not the intention.
I'm glad to here this.
> All the best,
> email@example.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
to post comments)