On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> So, it's no more good (or bad) than shipping a .tar.bz2 of >> some category A open source code (given the license). > > +1 > > From your description, this is different from a compiled object file, it's > compressed source. No information is lost, it's just obfuscated and can be > restored. It's a little annoying as would be releasing source transformed via > rot-13, but it's still source IMO. > >> It would be more better, I suppose, to grab the corresponding source >> tree and run their build script as part of your build script, but I'm >> a bit puzzled as to whether this, as is, is actually a problem. > > Doesn't seem like a blocker to me, so long as people have expanded the archive > and are happy with what's inside.
Thanks all. I've just expanded the archive, and reviewed the contents. It indeed appears to be the source code for version 1.5.18 of waf. I can't find any issues with including this source code (excluding the obvious weirdness about how it's included in our release package). Any other concerns? > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
