Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20110628232610.GA17701@daniel3.local>
References: <iudcf4$pnv$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<BANLkTim7k4iqBKJ78-B8PsQPgH=8CJn2Lg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110628232610.GA17701@daniel3.local>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:53:43 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTinctg1H+JiFJaZVmt57X1jFfrCPtw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Category B licenses
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wr=
ote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 22:24:07 +0100:
>> Conventionally at Apache, the "source release" is canonical and is
>> identical to the tagged source in version control.
>
> FWIW, at Subversion the tagged release and the tarball differ by some
> autogenerated files. =A0('configure' and SWIG headers are present in the
> tarball but need to be generated when building from the tag)

Yep :-)

> I've seen the same discrepancy in build procedure (from svn v. from
> tarball) elsewhere.

"source release" and "binary release" are just names which allow us to
agree rules and conventions and to express distinctions and
similarities.

Including resources generated by some process from source means that
the rules for "binary releases" apply, not "source release". This is
useful but confusing and often needs explanation (patches for
documentation gratefully accepted over at legal-discuss).

Using other words, including resources under some licenses in an
aggregate "binary release" shipped is fine but these shouldn't be in
version control when the "source release" is cut.

Robert