incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:11:09 GMT
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:
> 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...
> -1
> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> release:
>     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
>     charge.
>     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

Actually, the bylaws do not define "open source" or "software".  So
pick your definition.  The industry standard was the OSI definition,
or so I thought, which makes it clear that open source also includes
binaries that are accompanied by source code, or where
"well-publicized means of obtaining the source code" are given.


I'd point out that the ALv2 applies to source as well as binaries.

>     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).

Again, most would disagree with the assertion that binaries are not 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
> release.
> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message