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 14:29:58 GMT
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/

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

Mime
View raw message