www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Use of proprietary binaries
Date Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:27:52 GMT
David Crossley wrote:
> Benson Margulies wrote:
>> There are plenty of 'open source' license that are unacceptable for
>> materials in Apache repos, so restating the requirement for open
>> source does not strike me as adding much to the content here. Like
>> most discussions on this list, this is about the nuances of what
>> soi-disant open source licenses are acceptable for what Apache
>> purposes.
> If i read Roy correctly, then he refers to adding "binary" artifacts
> to SVN without also having their "source" code available.
> Hence it is not "open source".

No.  Open Source, even when we disagree on the scope of it's definition,
still meets some fundamental principals.  Publishing sources does not,
by itself, meet those principals.


See 3.

This is disallowed, as previously stated by multiple folks.  If it must
be published to Maven where 'anything goes', then wonderful, publish
it there, or have the build script fetch it from its ordinal location

DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message