commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Benedict" <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Cobertura + downloaded sites concern
Date Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:15:47 GMT
Henri,

How do you know that the reports are GPL? I knew Cobertura is written under
GPL, but how does that extend to the report generation?

Paul

On Jan 19, 2008 1:51 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> Just wanting to share concern about a couple of things:
>
> 1) Using Cobertura. It's reports are GPL.
> 2) Including sites in downloads.
>
> If we have a component with Cobertura turned on, and with the site
> included in the distribution, then things are very unhappy.
>
> Findbugs doesn't seem to be the same issue - it's LGPL, but the
> reports don't appear to contain any LGPL JavaScript.
>
> Currently we have Cobertura in:
>
> commons-sandbox-parent/pom.xml
> dbcp/pom.xml
> io/pom.xml
> jci/pom.xml
> jexl/pom.xml
> lang/pom.xml
> math/pom.xml
> betwixt/project.xml
> codec/project.xml
> collections/project.xml
> collections_jdk5_branch/project.xml
> configuration/project.xml
> dbcp/project.xml
> io/project.xml
> lang/project.xml
> math/project.xml
> primitives/project.xml
> validator/project.xml
>
> Looking at upcoming releases, IO does not distribute the site and
> FileUpload does but doesn't have any suspicious looking reports.
>
> Do we want to play it safe and either not include Cobertura (and other
> reports with similar problems), or not have downloaded sites? Or keep
> it as it is and make this something we have to look at on every RC
> check?
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message