Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4C50541B.3070109@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:00:27 +0100
From: Mark Thomas <markt@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-GB;
 rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r966882 - in /tomcat/trunk: build.properties.default
 build.xml checkstyle.xml webapps/docs/changelog.xml
References: <20100722223130.A183D23889E0@eris.apache.org>
 <i2dje8$es0$1@dough.gmane.org> <i2dl9b$i62$1@dough.gmane.org>
 <i2o56r$30l$1@dough.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <i2o56r$30l$1@dough.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 28/07/2010 03:38, Bill Barker wrote:
> This is probably cruelty against dead horses,  but shouldn't the
> download target be conditional as well?  Since checkstyle is LGPL
> licensed, I really don't think that we should be installing it by
> default for anyone that wants to build Tomcat.

That works for me.

> Being an extremist on
> this issue, I would actually prefer that we remove the download-validate
> target.  This would mean that anyone that wants to use it has to have
> installed it already, and so have accepted the LGPL license.  I for one,
> expect that when I download an Apache product, that it will only install
> compatibly licensed  software.  At least not without warning me otherwise.
> 
> This is a -0: vent.  There is nothing wrong from a licensing stand point
> on how we are using it.

I added a comment in build.properties just above the option you need to
override to enable validation.

Hopefully that is a reasonable compromise.

Mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org