incubator-easyant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: Third Party Jars
Date Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:14:59 GMT
On 2011-03-10, Jean-Louis Boudart wrote:

>>> So plugins could be released under apache licenses and specify in their
>>> dependencies such as :
>>> <dependency org="checkstyle" module="checkstyle" revision="xxx"/>

>> It is not possible to write a checkstyle plugin that was licensed under
>> any license incompatible with the LGPL - this includes the Apache
>> Software License.  Unless you write a task like Cobertura's Ant task
>> that jumps through a hoop or two in order to insulate itself from the
>> GPL.

> Then how maven checkstyle plugin could be hosted and distributed under ASL ?

Because there is a backdoor that I have neglected so far:
<> - it is OK to have a
dependency on LGPL projects if they are for optional components.

In case of the Maven checkstyle plugin the Maven PMC likely sees the
plugin as optional part of Maven so it looks OK.  I would consider the
plugin itself the unit of distribution and thus the checkstyle
dependency was all but optional for the plugin.  Obviously people can
have different opinions on this.


> And if dependencies are not distributed within easyant but retrieved from
> public maven repositories at runtime by project using coberta plugin ?

How is this going to happen?  People download EasyAnt and the plugin
from Apache thinking the code is Apache licensed and as soon as they run
the plugin a GPLed jar is downloaded without asking them?  I can't say I
like the idea.  At least the download page of the plugin should tell


View raw message