www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Include build tool source?
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 07:20:08 GMT
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that you are doing the right
thing by asking on this mailing list.  Hopefully someone who can give a
ruling will do so.  I think you can also enter a legal JIRA to try to draw
attention as well.

But until approved officially, I wouldn't put it in a distribution.

My understanding is that putting it in SVN/Git can be ok if you use a
"deps folder".  My mental model is that the repos can only hold source
code for stuff officially donated to Apache, with the exception that a
folder called "deps" has become a popular pattern, as folks seem to
understand that such folder indicates that the contents may not be owned
by Apache.

HTH,
-Alex

On 2/2/14 10:18 PM, "Paul Davis" <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kevan,
>
>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
>phase.
>
>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
>VCS.
>
>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/b7e2088c273708bd5ce46b3c135c20f2229c
>7ccf
>
>
>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
>


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


Mime
View raw message