|RE: [dsdp-pmc] Code contribution
Interesting discussion. From reading the
BSD-license, which is pretty short, it does not seem to require the redistribution
of source with the binaries. It does require that the license text be included
with the binaries, though. That’s all. The license seems to be intended
to stop people from using the source without crediting the original author
while also absolving the original authors from liability.
Of course, I’m not a lawyer.
So is the requirement that the Eclipse IP
team needs to see the source to do the IP check, not because we need to
redistribute the source?
Sorry, I’m just trying to figure out
what the rules are. Redistributing binaries along with Eclipse projects is
useful in other areas too (e.g. Microsoft redist components – assuming their
rules allow open source projects to redist them)
QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead
dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:dsdp-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gaff, Doug
I really like the idea of including these binaries in MTJ,
because it enables the casual user to play with MTJ on their cell phone.
That can only be good for the project. Given this I vote +1.
However, judging from Mike’s comments, we’re at a
process impasse. Eclipse legal needs access to the source code to verify
the BSD-style license associated with the binary. You have said that you
probably can’t get the source code from the other team that produces
these binaries. Is this correct?
I may also be slightly confused from Mike’s last email.
Mike: are projects allowed to redistribute only binaries as long as the source
code that goes with them is freely available from another website and the
license on the binary is compatible with Eclipse? Or is the expectation
that the source code will live with the binary in CVS?
Back to the top