On 1/22/13 11:58 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > ----- Messaggio originale ----- > >> Da: Andrea Pescetti > >> >> Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> It would be good to tun a RAT scan over the website. We have not done >>> anything to clean the content licensewise and we probably carry >>> copyleft content, including code, there! >> >> The website contains gigabytes of materials for which we are probably unable >> to >> trace detailed history and licensing, since they come from multiple CVS >> repositories, then lost and migrated to multiple SVN repositories, then lost >> and >> migrated to the current tree. >> >> So a RAT scan wouldn't probably yield anything actionable. >> >> The only thing we know for sure is that all those materials were contributed >> to >> be put on the openoffice.org website and that we are continuing to keep them >> online. Even if there is copyleft content or code I believe it will be fine >> so >> long as we don't put it in a release (and it won't happen that some site >> contents go into a release without a thorough check). >> > > If we are distributing code there it is our responsibility. > > > I am afraid there are also tarballs that deserve special consideration. > I recall we were carrying a GPL'd slovenian dictionary (not sure if I finally > got rid of it). Some content like the SDK should be verified for licensing > content and updated.
what do you mean with SDK? Our OpenOffice SDK is part of the normal source tree and doesn't contain anything critical. Juergen > > The fact that information was transfered through CVS and SVN or whatever > is irrelevant we should know what we have and ultimately after any cleanup > SVN will remember what we had in there. > > I understand we are underpowered to fix all that but the biggest problem is > that we don't have any accounting over the content there, so it's a can of > worms waiting to be opened. > > Pedro. >
