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 Fri, 03 May 2013 04:53:16 GMT
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On May 2, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 2, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We may very well have to look at each specific font to determine what
> >>> the "preferred form for making modifications" would be.
> >>
> >> FYI, I downloaded the Ubuntu font source
> (ubuntu-font-family-sources_0.80.orig.tar.gz) from
> http://font.ubuntu.com/resources/
> >>
> >> The build process is described in the file sources/SOURCES.txt. The
> "build" process requires  tools such as:
> >>
> >>  http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/vtt.aspx
> >>  http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/tools.aspx
> >>  http://www.fontlab.com/font-editor/fontlab-studio/
> >>
> >> As far as I can tell (and this is all new to me), the files that are
> used in building the final Ubuntu fonts are not contained within the binary
> distribution of the fonts. The binary distribution does not contain the
> "source" (e.g. *.vfb, *-hinting.ttf, and a .cfg file) which is used for
> producing the ubuntu fonts. AFAIK, this doesn't mean you couldn't use the
> ubuntu font family to produce a new font. But does not appear to be the
> preferred form…
> >>
> >> My personal opinion, the exposure seems minimal, here. And I tend to
> think of these files like I might treat other media files (e.g. a .gif file
> produced by a paint application).
> >
> > First, a huge thanks for doing the analysis!  It truly is helpful.
> >
> > However, I do want to point out that "exposure" is probably not the
> > right focus here.  The license gives permission to distribute these
> > fonts, subject to a number of conditions.  I'm satisfied that we both
> > intend to and are capable of meeting those conditions.  Assuming that
> > we do so, the exposure is indeed minimal.
>
> Let me clarify my use of 'exposure'. It was from the perspective of the
> "exposed surface area" comment contained within [1] (I'm reusing your
> footnotes).
>
> I would agree that this is probably a moot point… But this was the general
> thread I was tugging at:
>
> We do have an exception for Category B source, if that source is unlikely
> to change (e.g. standards-based .dtd's).
>
> And the source/object characterization of the Ubuntu fonts is hard for me
> to distinguish. So, I could imagine someone trying to make a case to allow
> the fonts...
>
> However, the source/binary distinction does exist. At least for Ubuntu and
> I'm sure others skilled in the art… And I see no reason why we should be
> re-defining their distinction...
>
> >
> > The concern isn't one of exposure, but rather one of ASF policy.  I've
> > already updated the website[1] to indicate that we have found
> > consensus on this license being considered Category B, and that page
> > indicates what ASF policy allows PMCs to do with artefacts made
> > available under such a license.
> >
> > 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.

Images comfortably fall into #3. Fonts are an open question as to whether
they are #2 or #3.

Per Mark/Kevan below:

Source distributions and SVN contain Source (#1). They don't contain Binary
(#2). I'm going to assume that they may contain 'Other' (#3) given said
files exist in httpd-<version>.tar.gz.

I agree with that.

So I think the questions are:

A) Are Fonts 'Other' or 'Binary'?
B) Should ASF policy allow Category B 'Other' files into source
distributions and SVN?

I'm not font expert enough for question A.

I think B is very open ended. The topics on machine learning models and
their data would show up here as I don't think they would be 'Source', but
so would including the images that javadoc produces or some CC-BY licensed
picture. B doesn't need answering yet if the answer to A is 'Binary'.

Hen

(the below kept as I refer to it)

>
> > Mark Thomas[3] gave his input yesterday on this topic.
> >
> > We can chose to collectively accept that input, post it to our
> > website, and make it official policy.  Or people can chose to
> > challenge that input.  Or we can seek narrowly crafted exceptions.
>
> Well, I don't think infrastructure concerns about infrastructure resource
> constraints is a good reason for establishing a policy. So, I may not
> necessarily agree with the reasoning. However...
>
> IMO, our projects release source. So, our projects should not maintain
> object/binary artifacts in their svn release tree, regardless of license
> (category a or b).
>

Mime
View raw message