Le 2 avril 2012 15:10, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Olivier Grisel > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Le 2 avril 2012 11:28, Fabian Christ <[email protected]> a >> écrit : >> > Hi, >> > >> > Reto pointed me to this document >> > >> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories >> > >> > and since OWL-API is AL20 licensed it is a category A dependency which >> > may be included "in both source and binary form". >> >> Yes but we should not include binaries in a *source* release. It would >> be fine in a binary distribution of Stanbol. >> > Where does his should-level requirement comes from? For category B license > it is actually recommended to include them only in binary form and the > primary apache releases are always source releases.
It just made sense to me: when I fetch the source tarball of an open source project I expect to only have the source of the project and install the dependencies automatically seperately if the build system can do it (e.g. maven or ivy in java or pip in python) or install the manually (e.g. when building a C / C++ project from the source tarball with ./configure && make && sudo make install). However, some apache projects do have some jars shipped in their source distrib: for instance see the content of the lib folder in the lucene source archive http://mirror.mkhelif.fr/apache/lucene/java/3.5.0/ So I guess it's ok to include binary dependencies in the source release of Stanbol (even though I find it ugly :). -- Olivier http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
