Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: [SOLVED] Missing thirdparty directory in souce tarballs

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    dijichi2 is offline OpenSource Builder & Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    Rep Power
    12

    Default [SOLVED] Missing thirdparty directory in souce tarballs

    Hi

    The 5.0b2 source seems to be missing ThirdParty, necessary because of the very specific way Zimbra compiles and configures these components. Is there somewhere to get it?

  2. #2
    dijichi2 is offline OpenSource Builder & Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quite apart from making it extremely difficult for anyone to actually build Zimbra from source, is this not a blatent violation of GPL?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    477
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dijichi2 View Post
    Quite apart from making it extremely difficult for anyone to actually build Zimbra from source, is this not a blatent violation of GPL?
    No. It's not ;-)

    You can build the source without this particular directory.(I have it running on my DEV box). The configuration files exist in the production build if you want the config files.

  4. #4
    dijichi2 is offline OpenSource Builder & Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    No. It's not ;-)

    You can build the source without this particular directory.(I have it running on my DEV box). The configuration files exist in the production build if you want the config files.
    But Zimbra is distributing GPL software along with it's commercial product (and its 'opensource' product which is not compatible with GPL), in some cases this software is modified. I was under impression you have to distribute full source as well as modifications.

    It's a pretty sad situation when we have to grasp at straws in order to try and get the basic source to compile from.
    Last edited by dijichi2; 08-03-2007 at 08:25 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    477
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dijichi2 View Post
    But Zimbra is distributing GPL software along with it's commercial product (and its 'opensource' product which is not compatible with GPL), in some cases this software is modified. I was under impression you have to distribute full source as well as modifications.

    It's a pretty sad situation when we have to grasp at straws in order to try and get the basic source to compile from.
    Actually, it's been a bit of the reverse I think. Because of the licensing mess that is the Open Source world, I think the Zimbra guys have had problems distributing their full dist. All that being said, AFAIK, all software that is required to be out there is. (Note: I don't work for Zimbra, and a bit of a open source zealot myself, so this is not a area I am inclined to give anyone a pass at).

    How difficult it is to get the source working is a factor, as is the learning curve behind the Zimlet and ZWC architectures. Zimbra folk have said in the past that they want to work on it to make it easier to distribute (and frankly, with OpenExchange and Scalix both going OpenSource, that might be a good idea) and I have no reason to doubt them.

  6. #6
    dijichi2 is offline OpenSource Builder & Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,176
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    You can build the source without this particular directory.(I have it running on my DEV box). The configuration files exist in the production build if you want the config files.
    It might be possible but it will be as much use as a chocolate teapot.

    Actually, it's been a bit of the reverse I think. Because of the licensing mess that is the Open Source world, I think the Zimbra guys have had problems distributing their full dist. All that being said, AFAIK, all software that is required to be out there is. (Note: I don't work for Zimbra, and a bit of a open source zealot myself, so this is not a area I am inclined to give anyone a pass at).
    You're misunderstanding the point of the GPL - it's to protect other GPL works, not Zimbra. If Zimbra modifies and/or distributes GPL software (which it does), it must also distribute the source code and those modifications (which it doesn't). It might well say that the ancient broken svn tree fulfills that criteria, but without updated source how do we know? To be honest I don't give a toss about this issue, I just want Zimbra to release the ThirdParty directory (and svn tree) so we can carry on with our futile attempts to contribute.

    How difficult it is to get the source working is a factor, as is the learning curve behind the Zimlet and ZWC architectures. Zimbra folk have said in the past that they want to work on it to make it easier to distribute (and frankly, with OpenExchange and Scalix both going OpenSource, that might be a good idea) and I have no reason to doubt them.
    I don't doubt them either, but they've been saying this for months and nothing is appearing. The fact remains we only have occasional tarball drops, a partial, outdated, read-only svn sync of their internal source tree, and of course no access to the internal source tree. This is extraordinary for an opensource project, especially one that has used community contributions as a marketing point.
    Last edited by dijichi2; 08-18-2007 at 01:36 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. centos 5 zimbra 4.5.6 no statistics
    By rutman286 in forum Installation
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-14-2007, 09:30 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-01-2007, 02:20 AM
  3. Traslation SVN tree status
    By meikka in forum I18N/L10N - Translations
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-13-2007, 10:13 AM
  4. Help: Fullbackup error!
    By victorLeong in forum Administrators
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-02-2006, 01:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •