www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Clarification on GPL in SVN
Date Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:29:19 GMT
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> no, the plan is to download it automatically and use it. I would see it more
>>>> as a prerequisite like the compiler. We use it! But that is of course
>>>> debatable.
>>>
>>> If the plan is to 'keep source somewhere else, download in build, and
>>> use it', then I think we're all on the same page. If the plan involves
>>> keeping the source, in any fashion, on ASF svn, then Sam and the rest
>>> of us are uncomfortable, even if the fashion is a packed-up tarball.
>>
>> I disagree.  If put it elsewhere is an attempted technical workaround
>> to a longstanding ASF policy, then I am not on the same page.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>
> I'm glad that we now have the crux of the issue out here on the table.
> I'd like to cast it into high relief.
>
> We accepted a grant from Oracle. The granted materials did not include
> a license to a large, old, messy, GPL build tool, effectively specific
> to OO.

Some wordsmithing: We filed a grant that we received from Oracle.  We
are exploring the creation of an ASF project.  A podling is a concrete
expression of our exploration.  Successful graduation is not
guaranteed.

> In the short term, everyone agrees that checking the source of this
> into ASF SVN is not acceptable.

I for one never said that.  If there is a demonstrable need coupled
with a credible plan then we could discuss how to address the issue.

> In the longer term, the VP Legal does not think that a TLP has any
> business maintaining a GPL build tool, even if they keep the source of
> that tool outside ASF SVN. So no graduation, in this view, until the
> use of the tool is obviated, or some other organization gives it a
> home. (e.g. LO).

Asking developers to install compilers and even GNU Make before they
get started is an easy discussion.  Making a hard prereq on a project
whose sole existence is to support this project, even hosted
elsewhere, even having another organization lend their good name to
the effort merely to avoid ASF policy is not likely to be warmly
received.

> In the interim, while incubating, (I think) we all agree that the
> project could maintain it outside ASF svn and carry binaries onto ASF
> build machines, and make releases of OO that do not include this
> source.

I don't think that ASF svn is the primary issue.

> If this state of policy seems really disturbing to the podling, then I
> submit that it's the role of the mentors/champions of OO at Apache to
> take up the discussion with Sam and see if any other interpretation of
> the policy is possible.

I'm stepping in to help focus the discussion as a number of
distractions have been introduced.  Some latitude is likely to be
given to addressing a demonstrable short-term need during incubation
which is actively being worked.  Where worked is not moving the
problem around in order to address internal perception issues.

Automatically installing GPL code on developer's machines is the issue
to be worked.  Once the plan is in place to address that issue, we can
work backwards and see what we can do in the interim.  Those
discussions can be held with the larger ASF Legal board committee.

- Sam Ruby

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


Mime
View raw message