Hi John,

I think you see it the wrong way, this .class files are binary dependencies of the tests and that's it. The license - as any other part of ASF software - should be guaranteed by PMC (not by headers which by themself doesn't prove the code is legal).

Concretely there is no violation of all the mentionned links and this is perfectly valid.


Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau |  Blog | Old BlogGithub | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory

2017-01-03 12:45 GMT+01:00 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/869c739764d5d55d81199576d730d485d66df8be17ae16398dd7ca1f@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
[3]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#valid