openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
Date Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:42:51 GMT
Thanks, Simon

My impression is that the proponents of this idea intend making a full release, but doing
so outside of Apache.  That is, this would be a non-incubator activity.

Hence my stumbling on exactly how would it be drawn into the incubator.

(Having it be a LibreOffice full release would really be about TDF merging anything useful
onto their 3.4.x track, methinks.  For that, standing still on where it now
resides might be desirable.  Sort of a truce and removal of prisoners arrangement.  But it
is not clear how we repatriate those prisoners later.)

Too much speculation now.  I'll cease.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Phipps [] 
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 14:28
Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure

On 4 Jul 2011, at 18:01, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:

> If the Oracle grant (a license) applies to the code at a particular snapshot in time,
then I assume that changes to that code after that might not be covered (however covered by
the CLA to Oracle/Sun), and certainly anything which involves additional files might not be

While Oracle has expressed general goodwill, their grant at present is in the form of an explicit
list enumerating what files are covered. We almost certainly need to monitor a build of 3.4
to see if that list of files includes everything necessary. Whatever repo we run that build
 * will include a mix of licensing until the grant from Oracle is updated,
 * is open source so there are no restrictions on our actions
 * is not intended for full release so doesn't break any Apache rules
As such it doesn't seem to matter much to my naive eyes whether we wait for the SVN repo to
be built, build from the existing Hg repo (assuming we've sufficient access), or do it somewhere

I expect I am wrong though, I'm getting used to that :-)


View raw message