incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process
Date Tue, 29 May 2012 12:40:51 GMT
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

Mime
View raw message