incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <>
Subject dmake licensing issues again (was Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language)
Date Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:23:15 GMT

--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Rob Weir <> wrote:

> > Hello;
> >
> > --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> > ..
> >>
> >> I.e. there are cases where Apache projects may
> >> want to include Category-B (EPL, CPL, MPL, etc.)
> >> tools within a distribution.  This is permitted
> >> in binary form, but not source form.
> >>
> >
> > Someone correct me if I am wrong, but dmake as we have
> it
> > today clearly lies in this category.
> >
> Would it be part of the released distribution?  That
> is the key question.

I understand that you think that since it is a build
tool it will not be linked to the binary distribution.
If we only distribute binaries, that could be acceptable,
but I don't see how you are going to avoid it being in
the source distribution.

Redistributing the MPL stuff in source code form is
explicitly not permitted. The idea behind ASF permission
to distribute them in binary form is to avoid any potential
risk of developers editing the sources accidentally to find
out later that part of their enhancements are under a
copyleft license.

> But we should watch out  and take this case-by-case.

This matters.. it's not a case by case issue but rather the
rules: someone may want to make changes to dmake to build
their own modules and then make their modified version
of dmake available only on binary form. It may not make
sense for us now but it's what users expect to do from
code coming from the ASF.

With dmake and other tools, and that was the second part
of my comment, I think a tarball with the sources would be
considered binary form. And then, just like with EPM, I
think some people may prefer reusing a pre-built package
instead of adding more time to the (already demanding)


View raw message