ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antoine Levy-Lambert" <>
Subject Re: SSH Tasks
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:33:11 GMT
I do not understand why we have problems with GNU Licenses, and at the same
time, we have for instance Visual Age tasks in ant.
Is there any agreement between IBM and the Apache Software Foundation,
allowing the ASF to distribute code which uses the Visual Age API ? Is the
ant license "contaminated" by the commercial license of Visual Age ?
Concerning the SSH task, we need to find a supporting Java library
containing SSH client functionality, on which we can base an ant ssh task.
The ssh library itself does not have to be included in the ant distribution,
leaving it to the users of ant to cope with downloading the ssh library from
SourceForge and putting it under $ANT_HOME/lib on their machines.


Here is a message from Lee David Painter, one of the authors of the J2SSH

>>Hi Antoine,

>>We would welcome the use of our J2SSH library in an SSH ant task. We
>>however change our license, as a great deal of time was spent evaluating
>>benefits of each open source license and it has been decided that the
>>General Public License best suits our needs . This license has been chosen
>>to protect our investment of time in to the project and to ensure that any
>>derivitive versions would be also placed under an open source license, a
>>protection that the BSD license does not provide.

>>If the ant project was to use our standard distribution there would be no
>>licensing conflict due to the non infectious nature of the LGPL.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <>
To: "Ant Developers List" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: SSH Tasks

> Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Antoine Levy-Lambert <>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>What does this mean in clear text ?
> >
> >>>There is no definitive answer here.
> >
> > Whether LGPL is OK or not to depend upon in ASF code depends on whom
> > you ask - even among board members.
> >
> > For me that is enough to keep away from it.
> Stefano Mazzocchi has been quite clear in this recent mail posted to
> cocoon-dev and
> "
> Please understand that the recursive nature of the GPL license makes it
> impossible for any Apache licenced code to link to GPL code because the
> GPL doesn't protect the Apache brands (so it wouldn't comply to the
> Apache License requirements) and doesn't allow other licenses to further
> restrict the freedom the GPL gives.
> For LGPL licensed code, it would seem to be fair to link to it, but
> given the nature of the Java language, there is no way to tell where the
> 'library' stops and where your program starts.
> To avoid potential legal troubles, the Cocoon project, according to a
> ASF-wide policy created by the Apache Licensing Committee, prefers to
> avoid hosting and distributing any code that links to LGPL code because
> that might force the entire code to be released as LGPL, thus
> conflicting with the Apache license requirements of brand protection.
> Also note that moch classes and interfaces don't solve the issue since
> they could be considered a derivative work of the LGPL library, thus
> would need to be LGPL-ed as well.
> "
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi         
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message