incubator-easyant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicolas Lalevée <>
Subject Re: Third Party Jars
Date Tue, 15 Mar 2011 09:08:50 GMT
I took time to read (again) the asf literature about licensing. And I find [1] actually quite
confusing. The first question is about dependency (runtime, compile time ?) of an asf product.
Then second one is about inclusion (in svn, in the tgz ?).

I then searched in the legal jira, and I have found some similar issue.
[2] says it is ok for an optional dependency
[3] says its not ok, but there is some comment pointing that is is not talking about optional
[4] says it is ok to distribute such files as soon as there are for the build

But I guess the answer is there [5] as Stefan pointed out:
> We're not giving blanket approval of "LGPL licensed works in optional features that are
not enabled by default", rather that's a criteria the Legal Affairs PMC considers on items.

So we would have to ask for the Legal Affairs PMC if we want to release a such checkstyle
easyant plugin. 

So I guess, as suggested by Antoine, having such plugin released outside the asf is the safe
move. Hoping there is not much build related tools with viral license.



Le 14 mars 2011 à 18:39, Antoine Levy-Lambert a écrit :

> I have discussed the topic further on Skype with Jean-Louis and Nicolas.
> My take on the issue remains to move any plugin using non ASF compatible dependencies
> outside of the ASF, on apache-extras for instance.
> Once there is a companion site for non ASF compatible easyant plugins, it can be used
also to
> create plugins for commercial software such as WebSphere or Splunk or ...
> So middle to long term the easyant companion site can have a purpose much beyond only
> checkstyle support.
> Regards,
> Antoine
> On 3/14/2011 11:47 AM, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2011-03-11, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>>> I think that our easyant plugin glue is OK regarding the ASF rules as
>>> the user explicitly declare he wants the checkstyle integration and I
>>> would assume that he then knows the checkstyle license requirements.
>> That still wouldn't necessarily mean the checkstyle integration could be
>> provided as a download from the ASF.
>>> As Jean-Louis also pointed out, our use case is not different from the
>>> Maven one. There is the core and there is some optional glue here and
>>> there to bridge with some third party dependencies. Would the Maven
>>> guys doing it wrong from the start ?
>> People can make mistakes, PMCs can make mistakes and even boards can
>> make mistakes.  I wouldn't consider the Maven model a token model for
>> EasyAnt.  There are some Maven plugins at apache-extras that are there
>> only because of licensing issues.  The checkstyle plugin may have
>> slipped through.
>> Stefan

View raw message