On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Was the licensing status of the CWSes in this repository every resolved? >> > >> >> The authorship is varied. > > > Independent of the developers involved and the individual rights they might > have, I understood that the whole repository was Oracle's copyright > property and thus a copyright license from them was required for any member > of this or other projects to use code from any given CWS unless it had > already been integrated into AOO and thus fallen under the blanket grant > made by Oracle. > > For the legacy Mercurial repository Andrea mentioned to be useful to future > developers I would expect the copyright status of the repo to thus need > clarifying, and I don't recall seeing a definitive statement. >
Without commenting on your overly-simplistic statement of OOo licensing, I'll just say that the release process is where we audit licenses. I don't think anyone here has an interest in investigations of code that is not targeted for inclusion in a release. > >> What CWS did you have in mind specifically? >> > > There was a discussion in the pre-TLP archives (which I can't find any > more) listing interesting CWSes. > Great. If you ever have a specific question, feel free to ask it. Regards, -Rob > S. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
