On Mon Jan 05 2015 at 9:18:48 PM Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> Interesting. I had not read that passage with a critical eye until just > now ... > > -- replying below to -- > From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 17:41 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Binary Convenience Package Dependencies > > Hi, > > I would strongly recommend that you review with legal, in addition to the > incubator on this type of question. > > If I look here: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > MPL is listed under Category B, which has the following associated with it: > > Although the source must not be included in Apache products, the NOTICE > file, which is required to be included in each ASF distribution, must point > to the source form of the included binary (more on that in the forthcoming > "Receiving and Releasing Contributions" document). > > <orcmid> > I don't see how this is going to work in the case of redistributables > for which source is not supplied and is not open. > > What come immediately to mind are the Microsoft Windows redistributables > for native runtime libraries that are commonly installed with those > convenience binaries that depend on their presence. > > Installing a JVM or a .NET Framework for internal use by a binary > would probably raise the same issues. > > Of course, when the ASF project doesn't actually build the redistributed > binary artifact, it's not easy to point to *the* source either. > </orcmid> > > This implies to me that you must include a link in your NOTICE to the > source code. This doesn't mean you need to distribute the source, nor add > a download option (from my perspective). > > <orcmid> > I think the minimum is to link to the source *of* the code. Whether > that is > direct to the source code might not even be the best choice, depending > on > circumstances, even if possible. > </orcmid> > > My interpretation of this (since I deal with this on internal stuff every 3 months or so) has always been that it's a link to the source code, not a link to the source of the source code. > John > > On Mon Jan 05 2015 at 12:53:41 PM Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Hi, anybody willing to try to answer this? > > > > Thanks, > > -Alex > > > > On 12/22/14, 8:11 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >I have some questions about Binary Convenience Packages: > > > > > >1) In [1] it says: "the binary/bytecode package .. may only add > > >binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that version of > the > > >source code release”. An Apache Flex SDK source package has a build > > >script that downloads jars such as Saxon and JavaCC. Does the text I > > >quoted mean that the binary package cannot bundle Saxon and JavaCC > because > > >we did not compile those jars from their sources? Or does “compiling” > > >really mean “running the build script on”? > > > > > >2) In [2] it says for Category B: "By including only the object/binary > > >form, there is less exposed surface area of the third-party work from > > >which a work might be derived; this addresses the second guiding > principle > > >of this policy. By attaching a prominent label to the distribution and > > >requiring an explicit action by the user to get the > reciprocally-licensed > > >source, users are less likely to be unaware of restrictions > significantly > > >different from those of the Apache License.” Does “including” means > > >“bundling”? If so, the quoted text must be referencing binary packages > > >and not source packages since source packages can never include > > >object/binary forms. Or does “including” also refer to build scripts > that > > >download an MPL jar like Saxon? > > > > > >2A) If your build script downloads an MPL jar, must it provide an option > > >to download the source? > > > > > >2B) If your build script downloads an MPL jar, is any other additional > > >warning or explicit action required? > > > > > >2C) If your binary package bundles an MPL jar (assuming the answer to #1 > > >allows it), must it provide an option to download the source? > > > > > >Thanks, > > >-Alex > > > > > >[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html > > >[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
