www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: Non-OSS code in SVN [Was: w3c license versus svn]
Date Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:31:51 GMT
On Dec 27, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Roy T. Fielding  
> <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> We only allow open source in our source code repositories.  We say  
>> that
>> because, otherwise, we wouldn't be working on an open source product.
> Lack of agreement is because I don't know of us having agreed that our
> source code repository is an open source product (as opposed to our
> distributions). Cf: the discussion about whether the LICENSE file
> needs to be in svn, or if it can be injected into the distribution at
> build time.

We have agreed that we only produce open source (that is inherent in
our incorporation and the agreement by which the original founders
of Apache agreed to the ASF).  We have agreed that we have a shared
information space in which we do our production.  We have many other
shared information spaces for other purposes (like websites, mail
archives, dist directories, etc.) each with its own expectations.

The expectation is that everything in our source code repository,
the work area for our product development, is open source.  That
allows people who are allergic to non-open-source (I am not one of
them) to participate in our projects without a conniption fit.

The builds are not open source -- they are builds.  What matters
to them is that the entire contents can be legally distributed
by us.  That is why non-modifiable artifacts are okay in builds
but not in our source code repository.  If a committer does a global
replace on the source code tree and part of that tree is not
allowed to be modified, then we violate someone else's license.

>> We have some non-open-source in other subversion locations.
> Is this good/bad? (not sure if you're suggesting there are other
> locations to fix, or that there are better locations to use).

There are other locations to use.  Like, for example, let someone
else (not ASF) build and distribute the dependency.  Or place it in
our own dist as a third-party artifact.

>> The other answer is that it is friggin' stupid to place nonmodifiable
>> static files into a source code version control system just because
>> the project is too f'in lazy to write a build script that pulls the
>> static content from some known location (perhaps even our own  
>> website).
> Ugh - creating builds that depend on non-standard external  
> artifacts is a smell.

There are certain smells found while cooking in a kitchen and
there are other smells found while planting vegetables in the
garden.  Each has its own purpose and is good, providing they
occur in the right place.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message