Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.46 as permitted sender)
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: What constitutes a source release?
Message-Id: <1165B607-1FDE-4563-A8F9-920F1E0A8B35@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:54:03 -0400
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org Discuss" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))

I'm moving a "discussion" from LEGAL-163 =
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163) to the mailing list.=20=


In the Jira, Henri wrote:

> So to paraphrase, (facetiously :) ):
>=20
> * 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.
>=20
> 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.=20=

>=20
> 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=20=


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.

FYI, found the following discussion in Incubator -- =
http://s.apache.org/rk5

--kevan=

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