Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 8:39 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
In reply to: The apology line forms on the left. Please take a number. by shmget
Parent article: A discordant symphony

I didn't mean it in a sarcastic way. I just meant that they have not assigned enough resources/people to do a proper review of the legal status of all files. Or even enough resources to update the files. That is just the simplest explanation for why the headers haven't just been cleaned up. It is fun to assume there is some grand conspiracy to rob the general public, or LibreOffice in particular, of some useful code. But much simpler to assume IBM just doesn't care and hasn't thought much more about it. They seem genuinely unaware that until they clean up all headers first nobody, even other Apache hackers, can do anything with the code.

IBM seems not very interested in the symphony code base anymore, they now have the (proprietary) IBM Docs (cloud based office) project. And clearly some people IBM assigned to the former symphony/apache project, like Rob Weir, have different priorities than helping out with cleaning up the legal uncertainties of the contributed files.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 12:33 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (20 responses)

"They seem genuinely unaware that until they clean up all headers first nobody, even other Apache hackers, can do anything with the code."

nah... they are very much aware. The the mail below from ooo-dev
show clearly that it is deliberate.

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/2...

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:04 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] (19 responses)

I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. At first I did believe he just didn't understand that this issue matters for people who value legal clarity when dealing with Free Software. But I see now that you are right. IBM, or at least Rob Weir, seems very aware people, including various Apache hackers, feel uneasy with having that code dump with incorrect license headers. And from his responses I see IBM has no intention of rectifying this issue even though ASF policy seems to be that only he can do it as contributor of the files in question. It is almost as if he enjoys the legal uncertainty some people feel to persist. Even though it is in his power to rectify the issue. What a pity :{

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:29 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (18 responses)

You can cover your eyes and ears and have as much uncertainty as you want to. It sure is easier to complain than writing code, isn't it?

But if you wanted certainty, then you would write to Apache on their legal-discuss list, ask questions about the SGA license, read the README that is posted for the Symphony code and see that this is actually quite simple.

The license is in the SGA:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

The README tells what files are covered:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/symphony/trun...

If you are not willing to accept that, then you are like the Obama-doubting "Birthers" who harbor paranoid delusions about his birth certificate unless they can waterboard the doctor who delivered him.

Hack or complain. Pick one.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:37 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (17 responses)

The README refers to a specific SGA that is available to ASF members but not the general public. This information may not be relevant to determining the licensing state of the files - on the other hand, it might be. We don't know and we have no way of knowing unless further information is provided. You've offered to see if you can obtain the list of covered files, and if it's possible for you to do that then it would remove that uncertainty.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:44 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (16 responses)

The SGA is a standard form. You can see the form here:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

Again, you seem to be harboring paranoia about what might be written on the reverse of Obama's birth certificate.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:48 UTC (Fri) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link] (12 responses)

What's this thing on Obama birth certificate you keep talking about ? Is he a vampire, born in the 18th century ?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:59 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (11 responses)

Rob appears to be trying to imply that Matthew is as paranoid as the conspiracy theorists known as "birthers", who think Barack Obama was not born a US citizen (despite his birth having been validly registered in the city of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA in 1961, which is after Hawaii's admission to statehood) and so is ineligible for the Presidency.

Tacky, Rob. Real tacky.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:16 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (9 responses)

Not at all. I don't for a second remotely think that Matt believes what he is writing. He is playing Devil's Advocate.

On the other hand, there are some who actually have these delusions that there are secret exceptions and reservations ,and that this code was designed to tempt,lure and deceive LibreOffice, only to pounce on them later.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:47 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

? I've spent far too much of my life having licensing discussions with lawyers. I don't believe that there's any hidden agenda or desire to mislead people and then sudden unexpected copyright suit, but the absence of clear and unambiguous licensing information does effectively prevent anyone who has a vaguely functional legal department from being able to touch the code. Nobody benefits from that.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:02 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (7 responses)

I think that's a little uncharitable, I don't know Matt personally but I have been reading LWN for a long time and have never known him to act in bad faith, or advance positions just to be a troll. I don't think anyone here has any delusions like you are describing, maybe that's from a different mailing list. Certainly some individual developers like to shoot their mouths off and say all sorts of crazy things.

Actually I believe you are both acting in good faith to clear up the self-evident confusion and that you two will have it sorted out shortly.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:16 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (6 responses)

I was not speaking of Matt. I was speaking of the post from the LibreOffice Marketing Director, linked to in the main article. This comment thread is about the article, isn't it?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:24 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

I was not speaking of Matt. I was speaking of the post from the LibreOffice Marketing Director

Really? Then why, two posts further up the chain, did you say

Not at all. I don't for a second remotely think that Matt believes what he is writing. He is playing Devil's Advocate.

You clearly were speaking of Matthew, but perhaps you forgot this in a period of less than five hours.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 19, 2013 23:56 UTC (Sat) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (4 responses)

So when Matt suggests submitting "racist screeds" to Apache you think he is not playing Devil's Advocate? If so, I think you are the one insulting Matt. Or maybe you just need a bigger dictionary.

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:00 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't think playing Devil's Advocate means what you think it means.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:10 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (2 responses)

"In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

You took the position of someone submitting a racist screen to Apache, a position you presumably do not agree with, for sake of debate, to test the quality of the original argument, etc.

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:22 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

It's my genuinely held belief that if I were to submit racist screeds via an Apache SGA that they would not be accepted, not a belief that I'm adopting for argument's sake. If you want to stick a label on it, it's argument ad absurdum.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 20, 2013 0:29 UTC (Sun) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

Well, whatever you want to call it, I was saying that you did not believe in submitting racist screeds to Apache, that you were merely using that as a rhetorical device. I apologize if you thought that was an insult.

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:22 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

We should be surprised? Everything Rob's said so far has been a mass of obstructionism, bafflegab, and tendentious argument, beginning with criticising others but then refusing to explain his position when pressed (since all that should go to Apache lists, not here, how very convenient).

The imputations of bad faith to Matthew (without any evidence) are a nice touch too. I have no *idea* how Matthew has kept his cool through all this, but if working on AOO means working with Rob I can see why LibreOffice is taking off.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:49 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

"Please refer to the list contained in the Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement for more information."

What extra information does that list contain? If the information contained within it isn't relevant, why am I being asked to refer to it?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:05 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

You're not. missing anything. I've now removed that line to avoid the confusion that it was obviously causing.

Now would you agree that the status is clear, based on the README and the SGA license?

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 16:21 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

I'd suggest two further changes:

1) Add an explicit link to http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt and the revision number in the preamble, just to avoid any potential doubts about whether "a Software Grant and Corporate Contributor License Agreement ("SGA ")" refers to the standard Apache one or a different one negotiated by IBM and the Foundation (in much the same way as "released under the terms of the GNU GPL" is ambiguous as to which version it refers to).

2) Add "These materials are contributed under the SGA" to point (2)

I think that those would make the intended copyright status completely unambiguous, but I think the change you've already made goes a long way.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 13:20 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (10 responses)

In a way you are right. This is a resource issue.

Imagine if the project agreed to publish (release) the Symphony codebase. That would require months of up front work, but would also be an ongoing obligation. We would need to provide patches and do CVE reporting on discovered security flaws. We would need to track bugs. We would need to respond to user and developer queries. We would need to maintain the code and periodically come out with new releases.

We were certainly willing to do this, if the project wanted to make Symphony be the new base for the OpenOffice project. But after examining the code and lengthy discussions, the community decided against that path and decided on the "slow merge" approach, to take enhancements from Symphony and merge them into OpenOffice. That is fine. I can see the merit in that decision. It is less disruptive to users. It keeps us on the code base that more volunteers are familiar with, etc.

But once that decision was made, it no longer makes sense to release the Symphony code base, and take on those support obligations. To do so would be to have responsibilities to maintain and support two different code bases, Symphony and OpenOffice. Double the work. Who would want to do that? Remember, the point of the Symphony contribution was to end the Symphony fork and concentrate resources on a single project, not simply to maintain the fork to another venue.

Regards,

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 14:01 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] (4 responses)

IBM not having resources to finalize the donation of the code base and clear up any legal uncertainties by cleaning up the file headers is a pity. But then you shouldn't be surprised people are scratching their head whether IBM really donated the code or not. The current status is that people (both from Apache and in the wider Free Software community) don't feel sure about the legal status of these files.

But you seem to misunderstand what people are asking for from IBM. Nobody is asking for a full blown ASF blessed Symphony release.

The current status of the symphony donation is unclear because the file headers don't match the intended license IBM says they wanted to grant to the ASF and the general public. As you say yourself IBM might have made mistakes in their SGA list or the code dump. And ASF policy is that only the contributor of the files can update the license headers. Without that having happened neither other Apache hackers nor the general public can really legally (re)use this contribution. By cleaning up the file headers and double checking their legal status you as IBM would not just help the general public, but also your fellow Apache hackers to work on integrating and completing the "slow merge" sooner.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 14:31 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (3 responses)

Anyone who thinks the file headers are an issue, and that merely changing them does anything to the license, has a poor understanding.

Take a look at the README. The file headers tell you which files are IBM contributions, versus pre-existing OpenOffice files. And read some other, more perceptive comments on this same topic.

In any case, you seem to misunderstand what Apache projects do. We don't just take code, slap a new license header on things, hold our nose and toss it over the wall for public consumption. That is not how we operate. We're not the money launderers of the open source world. We do thorough reviews or we don't release at all. There is no Apache-lite release. I sense that you wish this were not the case, but it is.

And note that there is absolutely no issue for project members to touch the code. They already have. Indeed, with the Oracle SGA it took 6 months to clean up all the headers, and all along we were all working on the code base. So that is non-issue, more FUD.

Regards,

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:11 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] (2 responses)

I get the impression you deliberately misunderstand the issue.

The issue is precisely the indirect nature of the license grant. If IBM would clean up the header files that does give legal clarity (as opposed to anybody else changing those legal statements on the files).

People don't question the value of what Apache projects do. That is indeed much more than the single act of IBM clearing up the legal status of the files by cleaning up the headers.

Various Apache project members have stated on the mailinglist they feel not cleaning up the headers is a problem and they don't want to touch any of the files till IBM does that.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 15:32 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

But we are cleaning up those files and getting them into proper form, as we merge them into OpenOffice 4.0. So we're doing exactly what we need to do to get this code into a release. Maybe not as fast as you would like, but complaining doesn't make it happen any faster.

You seem to be upset that we're not also maintaining a second fork of Symphony for the benefit of LibreOffice. Sorry, but no one has volunteered to do that. We're working on one codebase.

-Rob

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 19, 2013 16:26 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

You seem to be upset that we're not also maintaining a second fork of Symphony for the benefit of LibreOffice. Sorry, but no one has volunteered to do that. We're working on one codebase.

You keep on saying this over and over, but nobody else in the thread has suggested it, and several people have explicitly said that this is not what they want. Does license clarity necessarily require a fork?! If so, Apache's procedures are even more hidebound than I thought they were.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:07 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (4 responses)

> ongoing obligation. We would need to provide patches and do CVE reporting on discovered security flaws. We would need to track bugs. We would need to respond to user and developer queries. We would need to maintain the code and periodically come out with new releases.

I'm guessing that there is probably legitimate disagreement on that point, there are many instances of code dumps where a dead project is released without any obligation for ongoing maintenance. The quicker that is done the quicker that others can pick over the corpse for juicy tidbits.

Priority of cleaning up unclear legal status

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:22 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, I know there were fantasies expressed in some quarters, that Apache would just take the OpenOffice.org code from Oracle, slap an Apache license on it, and hand it over, along with trademarks, website, etc., to LibreOffice. Those fantasies have gone unfulfilled.

It would probably be very unsatisfying to develop new fantasies that Apache will do this for the Symphony contribution. The plan of record, as decided by the community, is to merge enhancements from Symphony into OpenOffice and release this code as part of Apache OpenOffice 4.0.

Remember, Symphony is not an entirely different code base. It is a fork of OpenOffice.org. We're just rejoining the codebases and ending the fork.

If LibreOffice is truly interested in having "juicy tidbits" from it, then it is in their best interest for us to merge the code into Apache OpenOffice, where they can cherry pick from it, just like their ongoing harvesting of features from OpenOffice 3.4.1. It will be much easier for them to have one code base to sync from, then deal with two.

Congratulations! [was: priority of cleaning up unclear legal status]

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:33 UTC (Fri) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] (2 responses)

I have to admit, you're an incredible PR asset to both the Libre Office and The Document Foundation, Mr. Weir.

Congratulations! [was: priority of cleaning up unclear legal status]

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:42 UTC (Fri) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

I believe I responded to that point previously:

http://bit.ly/106X3e4

-Rob

Congratulations! [was: priority of cleaning up unclear legal status]

Posted Jan 18, 2013 21:54 UTC (Fri) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]

My apologies, no more feeding trolls for me today!