www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Date Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:26:22 GMT
On Nov 19, 2007 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jthom@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote on 11/18/2007 08:35:45
> PM:
>
> > Some java projects are using the maven cobertura[1] plugin[2] which
> > checks the code coverage of tests, producing a HTML report (see
> > Commons Math[3] for example). The report is a combination of HTML,
> > CSS, image and javascript files. The Javascript files have different
> > licenses:
> >
> > 1) customsorttypes.js has a GPL license
> > 2) sortabletable.js and stringbuilder.js are available under three
> licenses:
> >     - WebFX Non-Commercial License
> >     - WebFX Commercial license
> >     - GPL license
> >
> > See the license headers in those files here:
> >     http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/js/
> >
> > Is it acceptable to distrubute these files as part of a projects
> > documentation in a release?
>
> Subject to being corrected, I'd expect the answer to be no.  I don't think
> GPL is on the list of approved licenses for included components of an
> Apache project.  Are the javascript files really necessary?  Can cobertura
> plugin produce a different format output that doesn't require those files?#

Henri, Jeff, Jesse,

Thanks for responding. A release of cobertura with an alternative
would be great, but thats not in my control. However I was hoping for
"hey no problem, its only documentation" type answers. I just went
back and read the (hopefully soon to be official) 3rd party license
policy/guidelines here:

  http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html

The second and third of the "Guiding principles" talk about "software"
and "products that depend on other software". Does this really apply
to documentation as well? Its not the software we develop, just some
generated reports about the software we develop. Surely that
documentation has zero impact on the license of the software we've
developed and therefore on the user.

In the "Software License Criteria" section it says:
"The purpose behind these additional requirements are to minimize the
chance that a user of an Apache product will create a derivative work
of a reciprocally-licensed portion of an Apache product without being
aware of the applicable requirements."

I can't see how reading a HTML report that uses a javascript file for
some display effect places any additional requirements on a user's
derivative work?

Niall

P.S. Sorry you got this twice Jeff - I always forget the default
reply-to for this list is the individual, not the list

> Jeff
>
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > [1] http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/
> > [2] http://maven-plugins.sourceforge.net/maven-cobertura-plugin/
> > [3] http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/index.html
> >
>
> Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
> (notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
> (web) http://www.beff.net/
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message