www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Include build tool source?
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:18:50 GMT

Do you have any specific keywords to search for. The Googling and
reading I've done have pointed me very much to the opposite
conclusion. Specifically [1] seems to suggest that this is acceptable.
The questions posed in the FAQ:

1. Is it customarily part of distributions of running code?

No. Rebar is a standard build tool and is not tied to the running
program by any means. Rebar is only required during the compilation

2. Has it been around for years and a de facto standard in its
respective community?

Yes. Its ~4 years old [2] and is the de facto standard for building Erlang
projects. Its even customarily checked into Erlang project source
repositories and has no real distribution beyond being included in

3. Is it made available under "library" or "lesser" licenses or
otherwise containing an exception which ensures that usage of this
tool does not affect the license of the code against which it is run?

Yes. Its ASL 2.0.

There's no question of source level compatibility here. Its just a
procedural question. Do we really need to include the source and have
a build step to build the build tool to build the project? Given the
tool's license and the cited FAQ I would've thought this would be
acceptable for inclusion. I haven't been able to find anything to the
contrary but that is quite possibly just because I don't know what I
should be looking for.

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
[2] https://github.com/rebar/rebar/commit/b7e2088c273708bd5ce46b3c135c20f2229c7ccf

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
> In past discussions on this general subject, the answer has been -- no,
> that's not ok. It's not really a "legal" question, but a question of policy
> of an "open source" foundation.
> There are discussions in the archives for this mailing list. As I recall,
> infra was against maintaining binaries in svn, also.
> --kevan
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
> wrote:
>> Given that the rebar project is ASLv2, I'm going to proceed with just
>> including the rebar binary, with notes on the exact tree it was built from.
>> The rebar binary will not be included in our release artifacts.
>> B.
>> On 28 Jan 2014, at 14:27, Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > The Apache CouchDB team is working to incorporate two sizeable code
>> > contributions which add many new features. CouchDB currently builds using
>> > autotools but we have, as a team, decided to  switch to Rebar
>> > (https://github.com/opscode/rebar), an erlang build tool licensed under the
>> > ASLv2. Both contributions already use Rebar.
>> >
>> > Expecting users and developers to have rebar available, or easily
>> > available, is not reasonable and so we intend to include the built,
>> > cross-platform rebar binary in the root of our source repository (this is a
>> > common practice among Erlang projects using Rebar).
>> >
>> > My question to legal is: Do we need to include the source from which our
>> > build tool is built?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Robert Newson
>> >

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

View raw message