openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <>
Subject Re: Clarification on treatment of "weak copyleft" components
Date Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:02:10 GMT
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:


>>> 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?
>> That normally is highly discouraged / not allowed.

Archiving the compressed source of weak copyleft dependencies in some
sort of repository[1] is something that Apache will need to become
comfortable with sometime soon

But developing downstream derivative works of weak copyleft
dependencies is likely to be a major issue

>> Why can't the patches be contributed back to the original projects?
> There is no intent to hoard.  From talking to developers on this
> project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than
> was done previously.  But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it
> will be integrated by the other project in a timely manner.  Simply
> having it checked in by the 3rd party component, but not yet in their
> release, is also not optimal, for stability and supportability
> reasons.  Release schedules don't always sync up.

Downstream packagers face similar issues and typically cope by
maintaining independent patch sets (applied at build time). Why not
just use patch sets?


[1] Many weak copyleft licenses require distributors to maintain the
code beyond the lifetime of the organisation which issued the original
license. We need to get used to the idea that Apache is likely to be
around much longer than commercial players.

View raw message