www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Wed, 01 May 2013 08:34:36 GMT
On 01/05/2013 07:39, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 
> Taking a stab at the clear policy, I'd propose adding this to resolved.html:
> 
> "Source distributions must not contain binaries <quiet>(but let's not
> discuss binaries that are not enforced like
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/icons/)</quiet>.
> It's fine to have the user run a script to download binaries after they
> have downloaded the source <quiet>(such as
> download-binaries-from-svn-tag.sh, or perhaps when first running the
> application)</quiet>. "
> 
> Either it's not clear to me, or the current policy is really just a
> vision towards a policy.

With my infra hat on:

Projects must not store 3rd party binaries in svn.

Projects have been found to be hosting entire Maven repos in svn. That
is not good and we don't want to encourage it.

Binaries that projects depend on (like JARs) should be downloaded from
the canonical source (which is never the main ASF svn repo) during the
build.

For projects that need to make binaries (such as JARs) available at
persistent URLs because the original site is not stable / not available
/ etc. then solutions are available but the main svn is not one of them.

Mark

> 
> Hen
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org <mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Would the language from the GPL be preferable?  See the first
>     definition in section 1 of
>     <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>.
> 
>     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>
>     [mailto: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
>     <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>     <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
> 
> 


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


Mime
View raw message