On 6 January 2015 at 01:41, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> 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: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
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. << [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > 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 <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> Hi, anybody willing to try to answer this? >> >> Thanks, >> -Alex >> >> On 12/22/14, 8:11 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> 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] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >> >[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
