www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tom Gould" <tgo...@roguewave.com>
Subject CxxTest and Apache Projects
Date Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:17:37 GMT


Rogue Wave Software has been in discussions with members of the Tuscany
Project as we would like to provide our test suite to the open source
project.  Rogue Wave has written SOA oriented tests for both Java and
C++.  We have run into a problem while trying to donate our C++ tests to
the Tuscany Project.  The following email thread explains the current
situation.  We still hope to provide our C++ code to the Tuscany
project, but in order to do this, we need Apache's legal to make a






Tom Gould

Development Manager - Hydra

Rogue Wave Software, a Quovadx (tm) division

303.545.3148 (office)

303.618.6402 (mobile)

tgould@roguewave.com <mailto:tgould@roguewave.com>   





Thank you for your response.  Like Apache, Rogue Wave avoids GPL, and I
think for the same reasons.  The code in question (test suite for
Tuscany) is a combination of Cxxtest (the open source GPL code - not
ours) and Rogue Wave code (our tests, etc.).  We would like to donate
this to the Tuscany project to save them time, but if it doesn't work
out that's ok, they will just have to write their own test suite.


We use this test suite with HydraSDO, our commercial SDO product, and
our legal did not feel that the GPL component was an issue for our
product, but Apache may have other considerations.  Since Cxxtest does
not belong to RW, we can't change the license.  If it was ours, I would
be happy to - I certainly wouldn't create anything GPL here ;)


Tom will discuss this on legal-discuss@apache.org and see what they







Patrick Leonard 

Vice President of Product Development 

Rogue Wave Software, a Quovadx Division 

+1.303.570.6721 (mobile) 

+1.303.545.3229 (office) 



-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Ruby [mailto:rubys@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 2:36 PM
To: Tom Gould
Cc: Patrick Leonard
Subject: Re: FW: Licensing question for code donated to Apache Tuscany


Tom Gould wrote:

> Hi Sam,


> Patrick Leonard and I would like an opportunity to discuss how we

> be able to work around the LGPL license so that Rogue Wave can provide

> C++ tests to the Tuscany project.


> I look forward to hearing from you.  


> Tom


> 303.545.3148 (office)

> 303.618.6402 (cell)


For starters, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  :-)


The right place to discuss this (as it will get the attention of people 

much more knowledgeable on the subject than I) is 

legal-discuss@apache.org.  That being said, I would be glad to help.


My understanding is that the LGPL essentially is the GPL with an 

exception for runtime linking.  In cases where this exception applies 

(like in the examples listed below), this is OK.  The question is 

whether or not the LGPL exception applies here.


My understanding is that the RogueWave code in question isn't linked in 

at runtime, but rather exists as header files, so it is included at 

compiled time.  If true, then it doesn't meet the criteria for the 

exception, and therefore would fall under the GPL license.


The issue with dependencies on the GPL license isn't that it contains 

restrictions on what can be done with that code, but that it would place

restrictions on what can be done with the Apache code that uses it.


Licensing often is an emotional issue, and the ASF does tend to prefer 

BSDish licenses, but the issue isn't that.  If RogueWave wants to 

license their code in a way that requires people who wish to distribute 

modifications to release the source, then we are OK with that.  There 

are licenses like the MPL, CDDL, and CPL that do exactly that without 

affecting what can be done with the code at the ASF, then we would be 

fine with that.  If the RogueWave code in question were dual licensed, 

that also would address this issue.


Remember: IANAL.  If this makes sense, then perhaps I got I right.  If 

it doesn't, then I probably got it wrong and again I would encourage you

to contact legal-discuss@apache.org.


- Sam Ruby




> *From:* Haleh Mahbod [mailto:mahbod@us.ibm.com]

> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:30 AM

> *To:* Sam Ruby

> *Cc:* Tom Gould; Patrick Leonard

> *Subject:* Fw: Licensing question for code donated to Apache Tuscany

> *Importance:* High




> Hello Sam,


> Could you please answer Tom's question related to LGPL? Tom is from 

> RogueWave and this is related to the question that we had asked you 

> earlier re

> Cxxtest which is under LGPL.



> Thanks,

> Haleh


> ----- Forwarded by Haleh Mahbod/Burlingame/IBM on 11/08/2006 07:28 AM


> *"Tom Gould" <tgould@roguewave.com>*


> 11/07/2006 11:21 AM


> Hi Haleh,


> I am back at trying to understand the GPL license versus the LGPL and 

> the implications of using CxxTest in the Tuscany project. ASF has 

> information <http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html> 

> about Apache licensing and GPL compatibility. I think the long and

> of it is as follows:

> The Apache Software Foundation does not allow its own projects to 

> distribute software under licenses more restrictive than the Apache 

> License, and the Free Software Foundation does not distribute software

> under the Apache License.


> This suggests to me that we are out of luck in terms of using CxxTest.

> One odd note, the following projects have used LGPL licensed

> log4cxx - CppUnit

> Qpid - CppUnit


> So it looks like there may be some precedence for using an LGPL 

> (http://cppunit.sourceforge.net/doc/lastest/index.html) library for 

> building an apache test framework.


> Would you like to bring this to Sam's attention - I don't have his

> address.


> Thanks

> tom




> *From:* Haleh Mahbod [mailto:mahbod@us.ibm.com] *

> Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:29 PM*

> To:* Tom Gould*

> Cc:* Geoffrey Winn*

> Subject:* Fw: Licensing question for code donated to Apache Tuscany


> Hi Tom,

> It looks like Cxxtest licensing under LGPL is a serious issue with 

> Apache based on Sam's input. Sam is a member of the ASF board and is

> of the Apache Tuscany mentors. As he suggests, you could also bring up

> this issue at legal@apache.org.


> Maybe the workaround is to have a pluggable test framework in Tuscany 

> for C++. I hope that we can work this out and this will not stop 

> Roguewave from contributing to SDO test suite. What do you think our 

> next step should be?


> Haleh


> ----- Forwarded by Haleh Mahbod/Burlingame/IBM on 10/25/2006 09:59 PM


> Geoffrey Winn wrote:

>>  Sam,


>>  Hi. I work for Haleh Mahbod as part of the Apache Tuscany team,

>>  specifically on the C++ implementation of SDO. We have been talking

>>  Rogue Wave, who are offereing to donate a sizable body of test code

>>  Tuscany. This is obviously something we want to encourage, however,

>>  is complicated slightly by the fact that they use something called

>>  cxxtest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) as a test harness that

>>  organises and runs their individual tests. cxxtest is licensed under

>>  Less GNU Public License (LGPL) which, as I understand it, is not

>>  compatible with Apache licensing. Rogue Wave are willing to ensure

>>  the code they donate to Apache is exclusively their own and will

>>  document the dependence on cxxtest with pointers to a source for it.

>>  would like to confirm that this arrangement is acceptable to the

>>  Foundation. Can you tell us how best to do this? If it helps, the

>>  summary of how this would work is as follows.


>>  1. cxxtest is distributed as C++ source code covered the the LGPL.

>>  will /never/ be donated to Apache by Rogue Wave.


>>  2. Rogue Wave will donate their own test code that is implemented as

>>  source code that extends classes defined by cxxtest and therefore

>>  contain, for example, include statements referring to header files

>>  cxxtest.


>>  3. The documentation for Tuscany SDO will explain the dependence on

>>  cxxtest and how to get it.


>>  If any of this isn't clear, please feel free to contact me.


> There is a legal-discuss mailing list, or this discussion could be had

> on the incubator or tuscany mailing lists, but in this case, I can

> short-circuit this.


> I can imagine no circumstance under which the ASF would allow code

> contains hard dependencies on LGPL'ed code to be checked in to an ASF

> repository.


> The GPL is viral. Any code that references GPL code must be released

> under a GPL license. The situation with the LGPL is complicated, but

> essentially reduces to being GPL with a narrow exception for things

> linking.


> In this case, there appears to be no linking. The whole codebase

> consists solely and exclusivly of header files.


> - Sam Ruby


View raw message