www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID>
Subject Re: Inclusion of .class files within a Apache Source Release
Date Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:51:04 GMT
Again, it's not used as an executable and it will not end up in any jar! 
It's just a class file which gets used inside a TEST to check ByteCode parsing.
It's really like a png or gif we use in some test. And the license is of course ALv2.
Seen this quite a few times in ASF projects...
Yes, we will rework this but it's imo no release blocker ^^


> Am 03.01.2017 um 18:42 schrieb Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>:
> Hi Romain,
> AIUI, it isn't a "no binary" policy, it is a "no compiled sources" policy.  Distributing
a compiled binary puts the responsibility of the effects of executing that code on the ASF
and should scare away customers.  You are taking a big chance by running the source build
script if it executes that .class file if you can't verify it came from the source you said
it did.    Sure a customer might have a bad tool chain that compiles the sources into a bad
binary, but that is not the ASF's responsibility.
> -Alex
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 at 9:17 AM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Inclusion of .class files within a Apache Source Release
> 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
> - 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 |  Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> 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/869c739764d5d55d81199576d730d485d66d
>> >>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
>> >

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

View raw message