incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:45:01 GMT
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <> wrote:

>     [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>     [ ]  0 Don't care
>     [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this

    We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
    and these will be part of the official release.

The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
interpreted by Roy Fielding:

    Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
    management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
    of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
    maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no

    This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
    certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
    that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
    501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
    every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
    open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."

    Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
    open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
    only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
    as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
    Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
    approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
    binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
    (even if it was derived from open source).

    I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
    to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?

I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message