www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What constitutes a source release?
Date Fri, 03 May 2013 04:09:03 GMT

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?
> 
> 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).

> 
> It is not my intent to state that any of those three are the preferred
> approach.  I'm merely trying to focus the discussion on the remaining
> issue.

Understood. And appreciate the focus, as always... I've drawn my line in the sand… See what
others have to say.

> 
>> --kevan
> 
> - Sam Ruby
> 
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-163
> [3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201305.mbox/%3C5180D39C.6020401%40apache.org%3E
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 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