On Oct 9, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 Dave Fisher wrote: >> On Oct 9, 2012, at 12:18 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: >>> Offering to remove the files is bizarre. What is that, slash-dot bait? ... >> What gets me is the attitude of Rob as a representative of IBM. > > Rob already clarified that removing the files would be a theoretical, extreme > measure for those concerned with having those files in the same repository as > the OpenOffice source code: they would be moved into an external repository > and integrated from there (which is not desirable at all, but they would > continue to be integrated into OpenOffice as it happens now). All that is being asked is that the IP clearance be completed. That way any contributor will feel safe. > > But, as discussed months ago (with no particular opposition if I remember > correctly), files that are on a separate branch and are not release relevant > will need appropriate headers only when they are merged into trunk. The > README for the Symphony branch already explains the licenses well enough to > be sure that people won't misunderstand: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/symphony/trunk/README?revision=1351160&view=markup When files that contain the copyright are moved into use then someone from IBM should change the header. The project NOTICE should then indicate that portions are copyright IBM., just like Oracle. It does not look too difficult to script... > By the way, the IPMC so far didn't raise any questions about these files or > anything else in reply to the proposed resolution: http://s.apache.org/oW No replies at all last I checked. Regards, Dave > > Regards, > Andrea.
