2012/5/29 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>: > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Tsutomu Uchino <hanya.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, Rob >> >> 2012/5/29 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>: >> ... >>> >>> You could be in error. I hope you acknowledge that as a possibility. >>> I could be in error s well. So what either one of us believes is not >>> really the point, is it? Thus the suggestion to clarify the policy. >>> >>>> Category-B tarballs are there in an attempt to work around the >>>> fact that we are only supposed to be using binaries. >>>> >>> >>> The restriction concerning category-b binaries is a restriction on releases. >>> >>>> No other Apache project is carrying sources and patches to >>>> MPL'd tarballs in the repositories and, other than the >>>> configure option, we are giving them basically the same >>>> treatment as Category-A. >>>> >>> >>> We're not including category-b source in releases. If we learned >>> anything in the last year I'd hope we learned that this was an >>> important distinction. >>> >> Release includes some JavaScript source having MPL header from moz module >> in openoffice.org/basis3.4/program/defaults and greprefs directories. >> > > The distinction between source and binary breaks down with interpreted > languages like Javascript. In such cases the distinction would be > between what we include in our released source tarballs versus what we > include in our released binary install sets. We may include > category-b in our binary packages, even if they are in Javascript, > though we may not include the same in our source packages. > Thanks to make it clear. In category-b section has the following paragraph. I thought "ASF product" includes binary release. But if it is not, I have no more concern among these files. >"Note that works written in a scripting language without a binary form cannot >be included in any ASF product under one of these licenses (see Transition and >Exceptions)."
Thanks, -- Tsutomu
