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: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:03:12 GMT
On 12 January 2012 19:59, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> ha scritto:
> ...

...

>> I'm happy to have someone review the issue, if you can
>> state what the policy issue is.  I simply don't see any
>> problem here.  We're not including category-b source code
>> in our release, period.
>>
>
> I am really not going into this discussion with you again.

I seem to have dropped into this thread in the middle as my name was
mentioned, if I have misunderstood some important context I apologise.

Rob, didn't you already discuss this on the legal-discuss list? Didn't
you already get answers to the issues that Pedro raises?

See http://markmail.org/thread/6odbj2isrq3jqg6g

Note that in this thread you asked if the intention of the policy was:

"4) Downstream consumer would need to make extra effort to retrieve and
modify the source of the MPL components, since we're not including the
source."

To which Sam Ruby (VP Legal Affairs) said "Yup."

You went on to ask:

"Now, for our SVN, we need to host the actual source of the MPL
components, since we need to build the binaries on the platforms that
we support.  And in several cases we have patches the original source.
 Is this a problem?"

Sam responded "That normally is highly discouraged / not allowed.  Why can't the
patches be contributed back to the original projects?"

You suggested using apache-extras instead of our SVN, Sam responded:

"Apache-Extras was not intended as a means to bypass Apache policies."

You asked:

"(Or back to an earlier note, is there any problem with having the
build script automatically download such 3rd party dependencies?)"

Sam replied "Automatically is typically the hang-up in discussions
such as these,
but a specific exemption for well-disclosed sources to despondencies
which are distributed with the project could be discussed."

In this exchange Sam asked for some clarifications so that he could
consider whether an exemption to policy would be granted. The thread
never really reached a conclusion.

At this point in time it is my opinion that Pedro is correct in
raising this issue. Either the PPMC needs to complete the discussion
Rob started on legal-discuss or the solution Pedro is suggesting
should be implemented.

Ross

Mime
View raw message