incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: Binary Convenience Package Dependencies
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 03:17:38 GMT
On 6 January 2015 at 01:41, John D. Ament <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I would strongly recommend that you review with legal, in addition to the
> incubator on this type of question.
> If I look here:

Please *don't* use that page.

It says:

This document represented a proposed ASF policy that was very helpful
in guiding the foundation for a number of years.
Please refer to the official version [1] that was derived from this
draft and associated feedback.


> 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).
> 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).
> John
> On Mon Jan 05 2015 at 12:53:41 PM Alex Harui <> wrote:
>> Hi, anybody willing to try to answer this?
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>> On 12/22/14, 8:11 AM, "Alex Harui" <> 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]
>> >[2]
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message