--- On Tue, 9/27/11, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hello; > > > > --- On Tue, 9/27/11, Shane Curcuru wrote: > > .. > >> > >> I.e. there are cases where Apache projects may > >> want to include Category-B (EPL, CPL, MPL, etc.) > >> tools within a distribution. This is permitted > >> in binary form, but not source form. > >> > > > > Someone correct me if I am wrong, but dmake as we have > it > > today clearly lies in this category. > > > > Would it be part of the released distribution? That > is the key question. > I understand that you think that since it is a build tool it will not be linked to the binary distribution. If we only distribute binaries, that could be acceptable, but I don't see how you are going to avoid it being in the source distribution. Redistributing the MPL stuff in source code form is explicitly not permitted. The idea behind ASF permission to distribute them in binary form is to avoid any potential risk of developers editing the sources accidentally to find out later that part of their enhancements are under a copyleft license. > > But we should watch out and take this case-by-case. > This matters.. it's not a case by case issue but rather the rules: someone may want to make changes to dmake to build their own modules and then make their modified version of dmake available only on binary form. It may not make sense for us now but it's what users expect to do from code coming from the ASF. With dmake and other tools, and that was the second part of my comment, I think a tarball with the sources would be considered binary form. And then, just like with EPM, I think some people may prefer reusing a pre-built package instead of adding more time to the (already demanding) build. Pedro.
