www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <he...@yandell.org>
Subject Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Sat, 04 May 2013 05:53:08 GMT
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Henri Yandell <henri@yandell.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 2, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Taken all together, the original question[2] can now be re-posed thus:
> >> >
> >> >  Should ASF policy allow object form Category B artefacts to be
> >> > checked into SVN?
> >
> > Thanks for the focus Sam, I think there is a subset of that question
> before
> > us.
> >
> > We've identified that there are three types of file:
> >
> > 1) Source form of software.
> > 2) Binary form of software, created from Source.
> > 3) Other form of file not classed as the above.
>
> I still prefer the terms 'source' and 'object'.  It is not clear to me
> that there needs to be a third category.
>
> > Images comfortably fall into #3. Fonts are an open question as to whether
> > they are #2 or #3.
>
> Um, pretty much all of the images on my weblog are in source form.  :-)
>
> Depending on how they are produced and maintained, fonts could be
> either source or object.  And based on the research that Kevan did,
> the specific fonts in question are clearly object.
>
>
Fair enough, I'm assuming a more archaic world in which all logos came from
EPS or Illustrator files; or PSDs. Using SVG everywhere does solve things.

I don't understand the rationale for being very staunch on source-only yet
allowing scripts that pull binary files from other locations, but no one
else seems concerned by it, so I'll stop being a pain in the butt. :)

Hen

Mime
View raw message