incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
Date Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:09:57 GMT
On 9/27/2011 8:27 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
...snip...
> I think the difference between binary and source use in AOOo is
> important.  When we bring source into the project we are inviting
> other project members, as well as our downstream consumers, to invest
> their own time into that code base, to maintain and improve it.  So it
> is worth the extra effort to ensure that the source code is
> unencumbered.  With a binary inclusions this is not an issue.

(As an aside - to explain the rationale behind ASF licensing policies, 
and not necessarily about this tool itself:)

Quite right.  As the ASF legal FAQ notes [1] about a related kind of issue:

"By including only the object/binary form, there is less exposed surface 
area of the third-party work from which a work might be derived; this 
addresses the second guiding principle of this policy. By attaching a 
prominent label to the distribution and requiring an explicit action by 
the user to get the reciprocally-licensed source, users are less likely 
to be unaware of restrictions significantly different from those of the 
Apache License. Please include the URL to the product's homepage in the 
prominent label."

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.

With these tools in binary form in the Apache release, a user is 
unlikely to attempt to modify that non-Apache licensed source code 
(which they'd have to go find themselves) without clearly realizing that 
that portion of the Apache release is not under our Apache license.

-Shane
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

Mime
View raw message