On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Mathias Bauer <mathias_ba...@gmx.net>wrote:
> On 07.06.2011 12:37, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>
>> Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that this is really necessary *now*, as we can do that
>>> even better and more efficiently when we actually work on the code
>>> from the svn repository. It was promised that the needed files will
>>> be provided once they are known. I'm confident that this will work
>>> out.
>>>
>>> Hi Mathias,
>>
>> hm, that bears the risk of missing stuff, and having to redo the
>> work - potentially rather late in the game (on top of having to
>> replace all non-Oracle-owned code).
>>
>> Whereas getting a blanket statement from Oracle ("here we grant you
>> the hg repo bundle") admittedly puts some risk into Oracle's basket.
>>
>
> That's not possible as Oracle does not own the copyright for every file in
> the repository (example: dictionaries).
You are both right. It seems entirely reasonable, though, to expect Oracle
to provide a firm commitment that they will relicense any and all files in
the repository that they own, including CWS. Sam, does the current
commitment from Apache give that assurance, or is it something we should ask
you to seek?
> My approach would be to start with the whole list of files in the repo,
> remove all things I know that are problematic, create a diff to the list
> provided so far and have a second look on this difference list for possible
> "naughty bits".
>
> Everythings else (history etc.) can be sorted out later.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
>
