cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <Ralph.Go...@digitalinsight.com>
Subject RE: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies? (Was: Co coon's Rhino+continuations fork)
Date Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:45:54 GMT

On general principal I agree with you.  I have no problem with having
certain blocks require that you download software from wherever under
whatever license.  The problem comes about when you start having other
blocks require the first block as a prereq and the prereq has an
unacceptable license.

In other words, I don't believe an Apache project should ever rely on other
software with an incompatible license for its core functionality.  In some
sense, the way Cocoon is organized can help this.  One would expect that the
core of Cocoon itself would be free of ANY licensing issues.  Blocks, on the
other hand, might not be.  In fact, blocks.properties as well as the blocks
description web pages could clearly identify what components they require
and what the licenses for them are.  However, one would expect that blocks
such as cocoon forms, the authentication framework, session framework, etc.
would also be free of issues.

Ralph

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:stefano@apache.org] 
Sent:	Friday, March 12, 2004 2:26 PM
To:	dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject:	Re: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies?
(Was: Cocoon's Rhino+continuations fork)

wait!

let's keep reasonable here, ok?

We are distributing cocoon today and it's *already* a legal hell to go 
thru to find out how to package cocoon in a commercial product and 
redistribute it. The cocoon *code* is licensed under the apache license, 
the libraries are licensed according to the /legal directory, as we 
specify in the README file.

Brian thinks that this is not enough and yields the false impression 
that *everything* is licensed under the apache license.

Not everybody agrees with him.

But due to the nature of cocoon, installations are just that: installations.

99% of our users do not redistribute cocoon as part of their system. 
They use it to provide a service. And, if they do redistribute cocoon as 
a part of their software, they will need to comply to *ALL* the licenses 
that we ship.

[but since we did the job for them to screen the compatibilities, they 
have to make sure that they comply to the other things, like IP and 
patent rights]

If we do not redistribute, say, Rhino, this makes it more obvious that 
they have to comply to the license because they have to download it 
themselves... but if we do it thru a package manager, well, it's the 
same thing.

IMHO, stopping distributing libraries under the MPL doesn't buy us 
nothing, the legal issues are all already there, we should just make it 
more obvious when the user downloads our distribution.

NOTE: legal issues are nasty with IP and patents anyway. Open source is 
not freeing you from living in the real world, unfortunately.

-- 
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message