On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:08:23PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote: > > In addition by accepting binaries without source one will be setting > > up oneself for legal issues. How can you be certain that the submitter > > has not mixed up sources with incompatible licenses while building > > the binary - not by malice but by ignorance. Binaries may only be > > accepted in the rare case from highly trusted sources. > > The legal issue is moot. As Stephen pointed out, we can accept things > under the same terms as they do for plugins on other websites.
I am not a lawyer and I definitely could be wrong here, but I don't see how this could work with GPL'ed apps (which is the vast majority of open source applications). > > For eg. I will personally NOT accept pure binaries for inclusion in > > BeleniX except for the limited case of ON-Closed-Bins from SUN (apart > > from other intentions of being FOSS). > > That may be a fine choice for you, but as I pointed out earlier, there > are times when a binary is the only and most appropriate form for > something. > > I would be fine with a policy that says, "we will accept binary-only > packages under X circumstances and with approval." That's perfectly reasonable. Exceptions like this will always need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. It just doesn't make sense to throw away the advantages of standardized build recipes just because there will be the occasional exception. Venky. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
