Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Publishing java artifacts from AOO to Maven Repository with
 missing java files
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
References: <565FBF64.4080402@apache.org>
From: Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>
Message-ID: <5660076A.8090909@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:12:10 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <565FBF64.4080402@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 03/12/2015 04:04, Carl Marcum wrote:
> I'm working on putting together a release of Maven bundles of Java
> artifacts from OpenOffice to Apache Nexus for use in Maven based
> applications.
> 
> This would be an update the the pre-Apache OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 jar
> files published here [1]
> 
> These artifacts are built during a complete build of OpenOffice and a
> couple of them are not buildable stand-alone.
> 
> One of the files, unoil.jar contains class files that are all created
> from OpenOffice UNO IDL files during a complete build of OpenOffice and
> not Java source files so no source files exist to include for a separate
> build consistent with supplying source jars files for change rebuilding
> along with the compiled jar files.
> 
> A second file ridl.jar is a mix of IDL created classes and some Java
> source compiled.
> 
> For the first file with no Java source files:
> Is it permissible to release the binary jar along with an empty source
> jar with a NOTICE file that explains this and a link to the OpenOffice
> source in svn or should an effort be made to decompile the generated
> class files into java source files so they can be built stand-alone?

The empty source JAR seems reasonable to me. The ASF does not require
that each individual binary artefact is provided with an individual
source artefact that can be used to build the binary artefact. As long
as all the binary artefacts can be built from the a released src distro
you are fine.

> For the second file with a mix of IDL generated and java source compiled
> files:
> Should we include what Java source is available along with a NOTICE file
> similar to the first or also include decompile java source as above?

Including what source you have a NOTICE seems reasonable to me.

> Or is it okay to require an end user that wants to modify the code to do
> it in the complete OpenOffice source code and compile the whole office
> to get new artifacts?

That is perfectly reasonable. There is nothing stopping you making it
easier than that if you want to, but there is no ASF requirement to make
it any easier than that.

Mark

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