incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [licensing] On Apache Releases [WAS Re: Clarification on treatment of "weak copyleft" components]
Date Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:55:58 GMT
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<> wrote:
> <snip>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> I'm trying, with some difficulty, to interpret what we can do based on the description
>> How does this fit into a release strategy that has both source and
>> binary releases.
> Let me turn that around and start to answer "how can an appropriate
> release strategy be formulated that abides by these rules?" :-)
> IMHO understanding the way Apache uses these terms is key
> At Apache, a "source release" is (just) what's in version control when
> the release is cut, is canonical and mandatory. Other artifacts follow
> the "binary release" rules, are optional and secondary.
> "Source releases" are aimed at downstream developers. Amongst this
> audience are downstream packagers. An important aim of the "source
> release" rules is to allow downstream developers to confidently create
> derivative works without excessive effort checking licenses.
> "Binary releases" are everything else, including artifacts containing
> source code in combination with other works.
> More explanation? Questions? Opinions? Comments? Objections?

Drilling into the details now, but another question has come up
related to packaging of the weak copyleft (category b) dependencies in
releases, related to header files.

If we have a dependency on an MPL component, then we do not include
its source in our source release.  But what about the component's
C/C++ header file, which generally is defining the interface to the
module, to satisfy the compiler's, encourage strong type checking,
etc.  Should we remove the header files from the source release as


> Robert

View raw message