On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Mathias, * > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:22:39AM +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: >> > A source release will never include the sources for these components, >> > as it never did if you downloaded an archived version from >> > hg.services.openoffice.org >> >> But you need to pull the source tarballs from somewhere - and this again >> touches the topic "where to put external source tarballs of (weak) >> copyleft modules". I'm going to continue with my "moving ext_src to >> Apache" thread tomorrow, so we can follow-up there as this is not a >> liguistic-only topic. > > Good to bring this back, because I thought I understood those packages > *could* be in svn but *not* be part of a source release, but Ross Gardler > message: > > "In order to graduate there can be no license incompatible code in SVN. > The solution below is ok only as an interim solution." > http://s.apache.org/5OK > > suggests the opposite. >
Remember, there are three categories of licenses: 1) Compatible licenses 2) Incompatible licenses (category-x) and 3) Weak copyleft licensees (category-b) So MPL is not "incompatible". But it does require special treatment, including (as you note) not including it in our source releases. See: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html -Rob > Regards > -- > Ariel Constenla-Haile > La Plata, Argentina >
