Thanks,
I needed that clarified.
Another point that Rob brought would be if we need a SGA
to add the Groovy (or other) extension.
I would think an SGA is a rather extreme thing to require
for extensions: we wouldn't require that if we want to
include stuff like ucpp, bsh, or icu ... or dmake ;).
Pedro.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:08:43 -0700, "Dennis E. Hamilton"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Uh, no, a source tarball is definitely not a binary form.
Think in term of executables and dynamically-bound runtime
libraries: something derived from source, but not source,
and not meaningfully modifiable directly. It is not some-
thing that is the basis for a derivative work and its
distribution alone does not raise license-compatibility
issues.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro F. Giffuni [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 09:25
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EXT][DISCUSS] Including Groovy as a scripting language
[ ... ]
Concerning the external sources that we still carry: would
source tarballs of MPL/LGPL stuff be considered binary form?
This is mostly what we do today so it would solve
most of our issues (gettext still has to go), but that
workaround would remove the motivation to further cleanup
of the source (glibc could stay!)
Pedro.
