www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:22:26 GMT

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

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


Mime
View raw message