incubator-easyant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Louis Boudart <jeanlouis.boud...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Third Party Jars
Date Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:00:50 GMT
I'm sure we will have soon others plugins relying on dependencies
incompatible with ASF policy. Checkstyle is the first one but i see others
plugins coming such as Sonar (using sonar ant tasks released under GPLv3).
I'm definitively +1 on moving those plugins outside of ASF.

Le 15 mars 2011 10:08, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org> a écrit
:

> 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 dependencies.
> [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.
>
> Nicolas
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-18
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-49
> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-58
> [5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
>
> 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 hosting
> > 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
> >
>
>


-- 
Jean Louis Boudart
Independent consultant
Project Lead http://www.easyant.org

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