www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: What constitutes a source release?
Date Wed, 01 May 2013 05:29:13 GMT
Would the language from the GPL be preferable?  See the first definition in section 1 of 

>From the OSI Definition of the qualities of open-source software? See the last two sentences
of section 2 at <http://opensource.org/osd>.

This does not mean binary forms are excluded, so long as they *are* the primary maintainable
forms.  In the case of images, modification might be by substitution or by editing with suitable
tools, so long as that is the natural, direct, non-obfuscated way of handling such a case.

It seems to me this is questioning of a policy of the ASF.  I think the policy is clear enough
based on this thread.  It may be more effective to request an exception to policy, rather
than struggle to lawyer around it.  I would give Roy's declaration on the subject serious
weight before taking any other approach.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: hyandell@gmail.com [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Henri Yandell
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 18:13
To: ASF Legal Discuss
Subject: Re: What constitutes a source release?

[ ... ]

I don't see that the quote from the charter in Roy's old email limits us as much as he suggests.
Community/Industry use of the phrase Open Source doesn't restrict it to only applying to source,
and it covers what we create/maintain, not what we include. It would be unhealthy for us though
to have a project releasing its core creativity in only binary form, so there's a lot of importance
to the source-only point.

[ ... ]

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

View raw message