incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: Code covered by the Oracle grant
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:30:17 GMT
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Ralph Goers <> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Christian Lippka <> wrote:
>>> While the technical analyze here seems (should not use that word) correct my
>>> understanding is that missing bits could still be provided if requested. But
>>> this must be answered by people who are making the negotiations.
>> I'll share my understanding.
>> My first input was that any incubator proposal that was not
>> accompanied by a substantial software grant would not get serious
>> consideration.  After a serious of miscommunications on both (ASF and
>> Oracle's) sides I got on the phone directly with the Oracle VP driving
>> this, and said that all we needed at this time was a substantial list
>> to start from.  If we needed more, we could discuss that later.
>> This was approximately noon EDT on 31 May.  After discussions with
>> lawyers and collection of a list of files, the Software Grant was sent
>> via email at 8:50PM PDT the same day.  Others with no association to
>> either IBM or Oracle can verify this basic timeline.
>> My best guess is that while the list may be incomplete, it contains
>> only files that Oracle could determine with absolutely certainty under
>> incredible time pressure that they have the necessary rights to
>> include a standard ASF software grant.
>> While Oracle has absolutely no obligation to produce anything more,
>> and people are welcome to factor that into their decisions once this
>> comes up to a vote, nothing I have seen has indicated that anybody at
>> Oracle is operating in anything other than good faith.
>> It is my expectation that if we make reasonable requests and that if
>> those requests are within Oracle's power to fulfill those requests,
>> that we will obtain subsequent software grants.
> Sam, for me this is the only area where I question whether I will vote for the proposal.
 From what I read in Christian Lohmaier's summary Oracle has supplied about 50% of the OOo
source code. His summary ended with "Apache OOo is far from being able to deliver something
that is even close to OOo as it is now."   As I've said before, I don't want to see the project
start off with an extremely large amount of work to do just to get something working.  In
later posts I see you got more files added to the list by Oracle and a list of more missing
files from Simon.  I would hope that the list of files to be delivered grows to the point
where those far more familiar with the code than I am can verify it is at a reasonable starting
point before we vote on this.

I don't know what more I can say.

The entire OOo source code is available for inspection.  Heck, the LO
source code is too, and some of the proposed committers will have
access to the Lotus offering.

What additional files should be requested?  That's for the podling to decide.

Should the ASF start from a snapshot or attempt to pull over the full
version history?  That's for the podling to decide.

Clearly not all of the files in the above set are made available under
terms that the ASF can make available under the terms of the Apache
License.  Should the ASF reach out to the authors, find alternatives,
write new code in such instances?  That's for the podling to decide.

Why hasn't the podling gotten started?  Because we haven't voted on it.

At the present time there are 55 committers who would like to get
started, and 8 mentors willing to help.  There clearly are some people
here who don't want to give these people an opportunity to do so.  And
there clearly are some people who do.

>From my perspective, I can't see saying no to letting people spend
their time trying simply because they might fail.

> Ralph

- Sam Ruby

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message