----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: Dave Fisher
...
>
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:12 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
>> Hello;
>>
>>
>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>> Da: Jürgen Schmidt
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I just looked and it appears we are pointing to the latest source indeed.
>>
>> I was afraid that there might be pages pointing to older releases
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sdk/
>>
>>
>> I cleaned out older versions of dmake and a GPL'd dictionary that we
> were
>> carrying but without an audit we have no certainty about what may be left.
>>
>> And no, I don't have time to hunt for specific cases so that's the
> reason why
>> I am suggesting a rat scan. There's no hurry though, just something to
>> consider for a TODO list.
>
> I think that rather than a RAT scan, a checkout of the web tree plus
> find/greps
> would uncover issues.
>
> Do you have search strings (other than GPL) to suggest?
>
I would focus around binary files (.zip, tar.*, .jar and oxt.)
Pedro.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Pedro.
>
