The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:24 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number. by rcweir
Parent article: A discordant symphony

So this sounds like you are confirming the view that the license on the Symphony code is unknown at this point. Nobody knows for sure what code is under what license because you have not reviewed it.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:33 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (5 responses)

There's two questions. The first is whether or not a liberal license has been granted for this code - the likely answer is "yes", but that includes assuming that the "more information" contained in the unavailable SGA doesn't contain any additional restrictions. The second is whether that liberal license was legitimately granted, and that involves reviewing the code to make sure that nothing owned by a third party was accidentally submitted. The article is more concerned about the first question, while Rob is more concerned about the second.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 3:48 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (4 responses)

"while Rob is more concerned about the second."

Rob Weir being an IBM employee, working in the division that developed Symphony, is very aware about what the Symphony code base contain... Heck, surely IBM use source control internally, and surely know exactly while line come from Sun, which come from IBM and which come from 3rd party...

But Rob also is in charge of building an eco-system of volunteer to support IBM effort to take control of OpenOffice.org.
So he came up with a new twist on the so-called 'liberal license'... sure once you have it you can keep your modifications for yourself and distribute then under the term you want (non-copyleft)... but in order to achieve that you must come and work for Rob to integrate the piece you want into Rob's project of choice, before you can consider using that code for your own purpose...

Hey, why not ? it is a trick as good as another to try to 'attract' contributors... I'm learning every day about 'The Apache Way'.

====

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Upton Sinclair -
I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935)

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 4:42 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (3 responses)

I've said no such thing. If you want to take the code, take it. The SGA license has been explained by me, by Matt, and also today on the Apache legal-discuss mailing list. But since this code as not been reviewed you take it at your own risk.

If you want a fully reviewed code base, then you'll need to wait for an official release containing that code. But no one is forcing you to wait for the release.

And if you think the wait is too long for your purposes then you are welcome to help us integrate it. But no one is forcing you to do that. You can always just take the un-reviewed code as is. Or wait for a release.

So the choice is really yours.

What you cannot do, at least not with any respect or credibility, is refuse to take the code as-is, refuse to help integrate it, and just whine about it endlessly.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 20:26 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (2 responses)

So correct me where I'm wrong.

There is code in the SVN which may or may not be available under an open license. No on can know whether this code is open until and after Apache has reviewed the code, confirmed and voted that it is freely available. Otherwise you are at your own risk on whether it's freely available and because the official signed agreement (and any containing provisions) is not available well you are going to be pretty much guessing. (this is the first post out of more than a dozen in which you've freely admitted this after berating people on how simple it is)

This [code review] process will not be completed until and after the code has been inserted into the working Apache OO.org code, anything not deemed "worthy" of the Apache OO.org codebase will not be processed at this time and could in the future become lost code. (you have no intent to review or ascertain ownership of any code you don't use in the Apache OO.org codebase).

Not only that, but Apache will not help anyone sort out confusion on any piece of code unless that code follows the above process and is merged into Apache OO.org codebase first.

The only way for Apache to confirm any piece of code is actually under it's stewardship is for that code to end up in Apache OO.org.

Finally, Even if volunteers only wanted to help sort ownership of the SVN code and NOT integrate it into Apache OO.org they would be refused as the only help being asked for and accepted is to integrate into the Apache codebase. Apache will provide no assistance in ascertaining ownership of any code which is not used in Apache OO.org codebase.

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 20:55 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

If you have a question for Apache, ask it at Apache. As I've said before, we work openly and transparently on our mailing lists, not behind paywalls. I'm probably the exception, in that I am willing to pay extra for an Lwn.net subscription, so I can read my FUD a week in advance.

-Rob

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:01 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

And I should also remind you that use of open source is *always* at your own risk. This is true of every project and every open source license.

So your choice is really whether waiting for an Apache release, with the additional review we put into it is important to you. Many of our users feel that this is indeed important to them.

In fact, I'd say that LibreOffice also agrees on this, since they waited for the Oracle contribution of OpenOffice to be reviewed and approved by us before rebasing their product on it. So their confidence in changing the project's license from LGPL to MPL was only possible because of the careful review we did on the OpenOffice contribution.

But if you don't feel that the benefits of that extra review is worth the wait then don't wait. But also don't cry about it.

-Rob

The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number.

Posted Jan 17, 2013 23:33 UTC (Thu) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

It is dangerous to speak in absolutes. You have increasing confidence in your rights to use material the more you review it, or the more someone else whom you trust reviews it. But you never have certainty. Anyone who says they do is a fool. It is not about absolutes. It is about risk management.

Since the SGA is provided by someone asserting that they are providing a certain set of rights, then the risk of hosting the code is very low. Similarly, Lwn.net can host your comments, and mine, without first checking for copyright infringement, because as part of your account setup you asserted that you would not post infringing material.

With unreleased code, your confidence must be based on your own review. That doesn't make it unknowable. It just means that it is your responsibility.

For released code, Apache projects do extensive review, and you can choose to accept (or not) that due diligence as sufficient for your needs. We do this transparently on our mailing lists and we have a reputation for getting it right. That is part of the value we add.