On Dec 21, 2015 1:42 PM, "Daniel Kulp" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 2015, at 12:41 PM, John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:34 PM Clebert Suconic < [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>> Nothing's stopping you from including them in the binary release. They > >>> should be excluded in the source release. > >> > >> > >> It's been easier to keep these .so there. I'm about to give up > >> maintaining 32 bits. but right now you would need to log on 32 bits.. > >> compile it.. log on 64 bits.. compile it..to make a full binary > >> distribution from the source. > >> > >> removing the .so will only complicate things.. I don't think we should > >> be so purist on this matter. > >> > > > > I think you're thinking about removing the .so's from the git repo. I'm > > not requesting that. They simply can't be in the source release tar.gz/zip > > archives. > > > Back to this part, the DO have to be removed from the source tar.gz. > > Per Roy Fielding: > > "Apache releases open source and ONLY open source. Our releases are absolutely > forbidden to contain anything other than the open source code that is in our > vcs-of-record, meaning code that is in the form most likely to be edited by > recipients for the sake of modifying the product, and in some specific cases > the generated (and open) source code of build scripts." > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201203.mbox/%3CC3656B87-A6DC-4D3D-B1EB-29911B7A8070%40gbiv.com%3E > > So yes, this part MUST be done.
I'd recommend tabling the lgpl license issue and bringing it up on legal-discuss. > > -- > Daniel Kulp > [email protected] - http://dankulp.com/blog > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com >
