On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com> wrote: > 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 ;). >
Again, this is a binary versus source code question. I thought the discussion was about bringing the groovy extension source code over, yes? That would require taking it through the IP Clearance process. An SGA is the normal way to do this. > Pedro. > > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:08:43 -0700, "Dennis E. Hamilton" > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> 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:giffu...@tutopia.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 09:25 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> 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. > >
