incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tsutomu Uchino <hanya.r...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process
Date Tue, 29 May 2012 12:50:04 GMT
2012/5/29 Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tsutomu Uchino <hanya.runo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2012/5/29 Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>:
>>> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Tsutomu Uchino <hanya.runo@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> Hi, Rob
>>>>
>>>> 2012/5/29 Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>:
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You could be in error.  I hope you acknowledge that as a possibility.
>>>>> I could be in error s well.  So what either one of us believes is not
>>>>> really the point, is it?  Thus the suggestion to clarify the policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Category-B tarballs are there in an attempt to work around the
>>>>>> fact that we are only supposed to be using binaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The restriction concerning category-b binaries is a restriction on releases.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No other Apache project is carrying sources and patches to
>>>>>> MPL'd tarballs in the repositories and, other than the
>>>>>> configure option, we are giving them basically the same
>>>>>> treatment as Category-A.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We're not including category-b source in releases.  If we learned
>>>>> anything in the last year I'd hope we learned that this was an
>>>>> important distinction.
>>>>>
>>>> Release includes some JavaScript source having MPL header from moz module
>>>> in openoffice.org/basis3.4/program/defaults and greprefs directories.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The distinction between source and binary breaks down with interpreted
>>> languages like Javascript.  In such cases the distinction would be
>>> between what we include in our released source tarballs versus what we
>>> include in our released binary install sets.  We may include
>>> category-b in our binary packages, even if they are in Javascript,
>>> though we may not include the same in our source packages.
>>>
>> Thanks  to make it clear. In category-b section has the following
>> paragraph. I thought "ASF product" includes binary release.
>> But if it is not, I have no more concern among these files.
>>>"Note that works written in a scripting language without a binary form cannot
be included in any ASF product under one of these licenses (see Transition and Exceptions)."
>>
>
> That text was in an old draft of the 3rd party licensing policy.   It
> is not in the current policy.   If you scroll to the top of the page
> you referenced, you should see that stated, as well as a link to the
> "official policy".
>
> -Ro
>
>> Thanks,
>> -- Tsutomu
I wonder I have not noticed about it at starting to read it from top
today. Thanks.

- Tsutomu

Mime
View raw message