www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:06:14 GMT
On 30 April 2013 18:59, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:

> sebb wrote on Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 15:29:58 +0100:
> > On 30 April 2013 15:22, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Kevan Miller <
> kevan.miller@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> I'm moving a "discussion" from LEGAL-163 (
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163) to the mailing list.
> > > >>
> > > >> In the Jira, Henri wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> So to paraphrase, (facetiously :) ):
> > > >>>
> > > >>> * A Java project that stores junit.jar in lib/, cannot include
> that in
> > > the foo-src.tar.gz but instead has to either tell the user to download
> it
> > > manually or setup a magic download that the user is only vaguely aware
> of
> > > (pom.xml for example).
> > > >>> * A project cannot include images, but has to provide the 'source'
> for
> > > those images.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I can see there being an idealistic argument made that all parts
of
> > > the source tarball must be built from source (which would be a shock
> to the
> > > system for Java projects), and I can see media artifacts being treated
> > > differently. I can also see category A, B and X all having dependencies
> > > that are optional and put manually in place by the users.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I can't see, though, that there is any difference between a source
> > > tarball that contains a binary dependency and a source tarball that
> > > provides a build script that magically downloads binaries behind the
> scenes.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> :)
> > > >>
> > > >> So, I think we're agreed that there certain "binary" formatted files
> > > (e.g. media files) which can be treated as "source". And from my naive
> > > background, I probably would have placed fonts into that category (and
> > > since the font file is extremely unlikely to be changed, I'd have
> allowed
> > > under the category B exclusion). But that's not really germane
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree that building some of our Java projects entirely from
> scratch
> > > is an extremely difficult undertaking. I have known companies/projects
> that
> > > have done this for Geronimo.
> > > >>
> > > >> We may be splitting hairs, but including Java class/jar files or .o
> > > files, .exe files in a *source* release does not meet my definition of
> open
> > > source.
> > > >
> > > > Our license[1] contains the following definitions:
> > > >
> > > > "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
> > > > including but not limited to software source code, documentation
> > > > source, and configuration files.
> > > >
> > > > "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
> > > > transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not
> > > > limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and
> > > > conversions to other media types.
> > >
> > > :) I guess our *license* is a pretty good starting point...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> FYI, found the following discussion in Incubator --
> > > http://s.apache.org/rk5
> > >
> > > Strange. Does this work?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201203.mbox/%3C0F5691A1-97C0-444F-A514-B2E4E8E907DA@gbiv.com%3E
> > >
> > >
> > Looks like the mail archive server is unwell at present [1]; neither
> works
> > for me
> >
> > [1] http://monitoring.apache.org/status/
>
> Neither what?  Neither mail-archives.eu.a.o nor mail-archives.us.a.o ?
>

Neither of the URLs quoted in the posting to which I replied.

Mime
View raw message