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: Include build tool source?
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 04:36:46 GMT
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.


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
> >

View raw message