Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de.INVALID>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Inclusion of .class files within a Apache Source Release
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 12:51:09 +0100
References: <CAOqetn_SQQV8z3tD+XtGiBNBXGEmogUbju-2aFAsOQBSROWK2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <CAOqetn_SQQV8z3tD+XtGiBNBXGEmogUbju-2aFAsOQBSROWK2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <531A8CB0-9ABF-4A45-97E6-2871034AC1A1@yahoo.de>
archived-at: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 11:51:25 -0000

The class file in question was added by ASF member rmannibucau under =
ALv2 as a >>resource<< and not as a source file.=20
The original file of course has the ASF license header, but the 'class' =
resource is still checked in to our SVN as .class file.=20

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.=20
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.=20

In other words: this .class file is a test resource and handled exactly =
the same like a png or jpeg file.
 =20
I don't see any legal problem.=20

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 03.01.2017 um 12:45 schrieb John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>:
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> .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.
>=20
> So I'm wondering 1. is that accurate? and 2. is there an acceptable =
way to verify that the license is correct?
>=20
> [1]: =
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain
> [2]: =
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/869c739764d5d55d81199576d730d485d66df=
8be17ae16398dd7ca1f@%3Cdev.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E
> [3]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#valid
>=20


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