incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: third party tooling.
Date Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:57:54 GMT
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
> Roman Shaposhnik wrote in reply to jan i:
>
>> I'm not aware of any policy like that. That said, I'd say the rule in my book
>> is very close to Linux packaging guidelines. Open source software *must*
>> be bootsrappable from source using *only* open source software binaries
>> as the input.
>>
>> It is absolutely fine to use the closed source tools to facilitate the release
>> process, etc. But the above rule has to hold if you want to call yourself
>> open source.
>
> That would add conditions which go beyond OSI's widely accepted Open Source
> Definition:

Correct. And that's why I prefixed my statement with a disclaimer of
"in my book".
OSI guidelines are really date in quite a few areas at this point
(API, code base
complexity and cloud are the key areas).

> Also, "Linux packaging guidelines"?  What does that refer to?  The Debian Free
> Software Guidelines?

The page that I remember off the top of my head is this one:
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries

IOW, you can call yourself open source software all you want,
but unless you get an exception from Fedora Packaging Committee
you are not open enough for the distribution to consider your work.

This is, btw, why Java-based software packages with their pervasive
use of Maven have such a hard time integrating properly into Linux
distros.

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message