incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: [licensing] On Apache Releases [WAS Re: Clarification on treatment of "weak copyleft" components]
Date Tue, 01 Nov 2011 09:46:40 GMT
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Oct 20, 2011 9:40 PM, "Robert Burrell Donkin" <
robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>
> <snip>
>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > OK.  So obviously no "weak" copyleft source files in our source
> > release, i.e., in our source tarballs.
>
> +1
>
> <snip>
>
> > The approach we currently have for these components, in OpenOffice, is:
> >
> > 1) The 3rd party components are stored in a separate repository, not
> > with the core product's SVN.  So we reduce the opportunity for
> > contamination.
> >
> > 2) The build script downloads the source for these components and
> > compiles them.
> >
> > So we avoid the pre-req/provisioning issue.  And we don't need to
> > include the MPL code in the source distribution.  It comes down
> > automatically at build time,
> >
> > That may satisfy the letter of what I'm reading.  But I'd be
> > interested to hear what you think, whether something like that had
> > been done at Apache before.
>
> Most projects use this sort of approach (though there is a strong
> minority view that thinks that they are wrong to do so)

That is not my understanding. As far as I am aware automated downloading of
incompatible licensed coffee is not acceptable.

Providing a separate convenience script that prepares the tree might be
acceptable (need to check with legal-discuss). The difference is th at
there I'd an opportunity to inform the downstream.

Ross

>
> There has been historic resistance to hosting weak copyleft source at
> Apache but there's now a consensus that requirements to supply source
> in perpetuity mean that we'll have to host it sooner or later, most
> likely in a separate repository.
>
> > Maybe it would be better, for example, to allow two build modes, one
> > with and one without the copyleft components, and force the downstream
> > developer to explicitly enable the compilation with weak copyleft
> > components by changing a flag or something?
>
> Always a good idea to let developers know what's happening
>
> Some downstream consumers (in particular, packagers) want to compile
> against their own system dependencies so IMHO it'd be cleaner just to
> switch on or off dependency download, preferrably with fine control.
>
> Robert

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message