www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevan Miller (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LEGAL-163) Are "Ubuntu License 1.0" licensed fonts allowed in the repo
Date Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:52:16 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13644490#comment-13644490

Kevan Miller commented on LEGAL-163:

http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html doesn't say anything about where binary dependencies
can be stored, regardless of Category. And I don't think there should be a special exclusion
for Category B binaries.

I don't see a difference between how a Category A binary and a Category B binary should be
handled. And, neither belongs in a source release of an Apache product. I don't see how either
could be described as *source*.

This doesn't preclude a project from maintaining binary dependencies that can be conveniently
distributed to project members. As long as the dependencies are not part of the source release
of a project. Many projects use maven to manage their build dependencies. Some ant-based projects
download binaries as part of a build. Others may require dependencies to be downloaded or
built from source -- using mechanisms outside of the projects build infrastructure. I believe
some projects maintain dependencies in svn, outside of their project release source tree...

So, my answer would be: Yes, projects can include Category B binary dependencies. No, the
projects cannot include binary (non-source) artifacts in their source releases.
> Are "Ubuntu License 1.0" licensed fonts allowed in the repo
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-163
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Andreas Lehmkühler
> We like to include some ubuntu fonts in our testsuite. They are licensed using the "Ubuntu
License 1.0" [1].  
> I'm not a license expert, but it looks ok to me. WDYT? Is it ok to add those as test
resources to out svn repository? Is it ok to ship them as part of the source tarball?
> [1] http://font.ubuntu.com/licence/

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

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

View raw message