incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com>
Subject RE: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
Date Tue, 27 Sep 2011 20:39:55 GMT
 Thanks,

 I needed that clarified.

 Another point that Rob brought would be if we need a SGA
 to add the Groovy (or other) extension.

 I would think an SGA is a rather extreme thing to require
 for extensions: we wouldn't require that if we want to
 include stuff like ucpp, bsh, or icu ... or dmake ;).

 Pedro.

 On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:08:43 -0700, "Dennis E. Hamilton" 
 <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
> Uh, no, a source tarball is definitely not a binary form.
>
> Think in term of executables and dynamically-bound runtime
> libraries: something derived from source, but not source,
> and not meaningfully modifiable directly.  It is not some-
> thing that is the basis for a derivative work and its
> distribution alone does not raise license-compatibility
> issues.
>
>  - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro F. Giffuni [mailto:giffunip@tutopia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 09:25
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Concerning the external sources that we still carry: would
> source tarballs of MPL/LGPL stuff be considered binary form?
> This is mostly what we do today so it would solve
> most of our issues (gettext still has to go), but that
> workaround would remove the motivation to further cleanup
> of the source (glibc could stay!)
>
> Pedro.


Mime
View raw message