www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Inclusion of .class files within a Apache Source Release
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:17:03 GMT
Please don't diverge: too much

- can we do better: probably, even if "process-test-resources life-cycle
goal seems read-made for this" doesn't really help since it requires a
build setup we likely don't want to ensure we have these classes only for
some part of some tests and not the whole test phase. it also breaks IDE
support to do it this way and reduce contributions capabilities but that's
another topic....
- is it legal: yes (otherwise as mentionned all projects with binary
resources would be illegal)
- is it unsecured? likely as much as generating bytecode at runtime so
probably out of topic for here too. Also note that a picture (.png for
instance) can be a .class and be loaded by a JVM is correctly launched so
security there is not really a point IMHO.

In summary I don't see why it makes so much noise for really an
implementation detail and I'm not seeing what is the alternative proposal
to not distribute ANY binary if we care about it? Do I miss an important
point?



Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory
<https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com>

2017-01-03 18:05 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>:

>
>
> On 1/3/17, 3:51 AM, "Mark Struberg" <struberg@yahoo.de.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >The class file in question was added by ASF member rmannibucau under ALv2
> >as a >>resource<< and not as a source file.
> >The original file of course has the ASF license header, but the 'class'
> >resource is still checked in to our SVN as .class file.
> >
> >This is for testing some bytecode stuff in OpenBebBeans. We could
> >probably later change this to have another project module, compile it,
> >unpack it, copy it over, blablabla.
> >But that doesn't change anything about the fact that this file is ALv2
> >licensed. But since it's a binary it obviously does not have any ALv2
> >>>SOURCE<< header.
> >
> >In other words: this .class file is a test resource and handled exactly
> >the same like a png or jpeg file.
> >
> >I don't see any legal problem.
>
> There may not be a legal problem, but I thought the reason behind the "no
> compiled code" rule/policy was about verification/auditing of the release
> artifact.  See Marvin Humphrey [1].
>
> Anybody auditing a release would scan each file for headers and find
> binaries.  They could examine binaries proposing to be image files and
> verify that they have image file headers and are thus safe to open in an
> application.  But verification of the safety of executing a .class file
> seems risky to me.  I'm surprised to learn that some ASF projects allow it.
>
> -Alex
>
> [1]
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
> discuss/201606.mbox/%3c
> CAAS6=7gVXGHqeKVeFV_r1849Qpi0+Ca0jc2QWQBQfRdZnCwVpA@mail.gmail.com%3e
>
> >
> >LieGrue,
> >strub
> >
> >
> >> Am 03.01.2017 um 12:45 schrieb John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> While looking at [1] and looking at a proposed Apache OpenWebBeans [2]
> >>it was discovered that .class files were contained in the source
> >>release.  It seems in the past that image files were generally
> >>considered OK in source releases, since they typically had to do with
> >>building websites, the traceability of the image was easy to discover.
> >>
> >> .class files are the compiled output from .java source files (as well
> >>as .groovy and other JVM languages, depending on how you compile).
> >>Since they are compiled output, it seems they shouldn't be in a source
> >>release.  However, the only true policy I could find that it violated
> >>was that we require appropriate licensing [3] and there is no way to
> >>verify the licensing of these files.
> >>
> >> So I'm wondering 1. is that accurate? and 2. is there an acceptable way
> >>to verify that the license is correct?
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >>http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> >> [2]:
> >>https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/869c739764d5d55d81199576d730d4
> 85d66d
> >>f8be17ae16398dd7ca1f@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
> >> [3]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#valid
> >>
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message