Rob: I believe it is rather foolish to argue that Roy is incorrect. For starters, he wrote the Bylaws, and is well-versed in the intent of this Foundation. Second, the Foundation policies take precedence over third-party concepts, so whether you/OSI may define a binary as open source is wholly immaterial. And lastly, you cannot defer to "most would disagree" as the only authority is the Foundation, rather than "most".
-g On Aug 20, 2012 5:11 PM, "Rob Weir" <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> > wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) > >> [ ] 0 Don't care > >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > > > -1 > > > > I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this > > release: > > > > http://s.apache.org/ha > > > > We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being > inspected > > and these will be part of the official release. > > > > The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as > > interpreted by Roy Fielding: > > > > http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3 > > > > Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active > > management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the > Board > > of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or > > maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public > at no > > charge. > > > > http://s.apache.org/rk5 > > > > This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the > > certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of > Delaware > > that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an > IRS > > 501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as > part of > > every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of > > open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the > public." > > > > Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files > are not > > Actually, the bylaws do not define "open source" or "software". So > pick your definition. The industry standard was the OSI definition, > or so I thought, which makes it clear that open source also includes > binaries that are accompanied by source code, or where > "well-publicized means of obtaining the source code" are given. > > See: http://opensource.org/osd.html > > I'd point out that the ALv2 applies to source as well as binaries. > > > > open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is > applicable > > only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we > vote on > > as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source > artifacts. > > Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to > > approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because > the > > binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for > release > > (even if it was derived from open source). > > > > Again, most would disagree with the assertion that binaries are not open > source. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write > documentation > > to explain something that is fundamental to the open source > definition? > > > > I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members > > casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source > > release. > > > > Marvin Humphrey > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
