incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Re: Binary Convenience Package Dependencies
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 17:52:21 GMT
Hi, anybody willing to try to answer this?


On 12/22/14, 8:11 AM, "Alex Harui" <> wrote:

>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?

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
View raw message