ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: SSH Tasks
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:23:30 GMT
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Antoine Levy-Lambert <levylambert@tiscali-dsl.de>
wrote:

> Which licenses are acceptable for jar files or binary libraries
> required by optional tasks ?

Depends on how and where the optional tasks are distributed.

Optional tasks that are part of Ant must be themselves licensed under
the Apache Software Foundation license.  If the library you want to
use allows you to write code that is licensed under the ASF license,
it is OK.  The GPL does not allow us to do so.

If you distribute optional tasks yourself, you are free to pick
whatever license you please - and therefore may be able to use a
matching library.  Note that importing Ant's Task class may make your
code violate the GPL (from the GPL's point of view) so this is pretty
much not an option there either, from a legal standpoint.

> Finding a solution for a ssh task which would be part of ant, rather
> than part of an extra SourceForge project would make things easier.

I agree.

> - finding another library with an Apache compatible license to do
> the ssh connection (ideas ???)

IIRC there has been somebody working on a BSD licensed library at
sourceforge.  Can't remember its name, but it must be in the archives
(ant-user, again IIRC).

> By the way, there are a number of tasks which are dependent on
> commercial jar files,

This is no problem, as long as the license of these libraries enables
us to distribute the tasks - not the library itself, we don't do that.

> So is there a special problem for these ssh tasks, or is the ant PMC
> now more rigorous ?

This page here <http://www.appgate.com/mindterm/licensing.php> doesn't
indicate which license would apply if I want to distribute an
application that uses mindterm, but don't distribute mindterm itself.

"compiling any data or information using the Licensed Products" falls
under "usage" in all their licenses, as well as "storing".  From my
(IANAL and all that) interpretation of this: anybody having the source
code to a task that uses the library on his/her disk, needs to comply
to one of their licenses.

This doesn't give me a warm and cozy feeling and without any written
consent of appgate, that the ASF is free to use the library in any way
it wants, I'd stay away from this code.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message