www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <hyand...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: LGPL testing library in CouchDB - is it kosher?
Date Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:09:29 GMT
Generalizing the topic proved non-possible, so the page lists the
agreed use cases rather than trying to be generic.

If I recall, the logback/log4j subject came up on here and received a
No, covered by the general No on LGPL.

Hen

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Ralph Goers
<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I also noticed that resolved.html doesn't talk about using LGPL for optional
> components of a project, yet I know that has been discussed and approved on
> this list.  That subject came up with regards to using Logback vs Log4j on
> one of the lists I subscribe to. In fact, that page makes it sound like
> Apache projects can't use the LGPL at all, when in fact what it probably
> means is that apache projects can't distribute components licensed under the
> LGPL.
>
> Ralph
>
> On Feb 16, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Justin Mason <jm@jmason.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:24, Gianugo Rabellino <gianugo@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Howdy,
>>>>
>>>> the CouchDB project is currently considering writing unit tests which
>>>> rely on EUnit, a LGPL library (see
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.process-one.net/contribs/trunk/eunit/doc/overview-summary.html).
>>>> As things are never that easy, here are a few more details:
>>>>
>>>> - EUnit itself will not be shipped with CouchDB
>>>> - EUnit is actually being bundled with the latest version of the
>>>> Erlang runtime/compiler (OTP), which is licensed under the Erlang
>>>> Public License, an MPL-derivative (dunno if MPL 1.0 or 1.1). It
>>>> doesn't seem like the Erlang team managed to have EUnit relicensed,
>>>> though, so whether their bundling is kosher is left as an exercise to
>>>> the reader (if it isn't, I'm afraid the violation  might still affect
>>>> downstream users)
>>>> - Execution of tests is entirely optional (compile-time option)
>>>> - tests are written using the API of EUnit, in a way that to this
>>>> Erlang-untrained eye looks like an import/include clause that makes a
>>>> number of functions available (asserting stuff, automatic execution of
>>>> all functions ending in _test() - much like JUnit does)
>>>>
>>>> Before the CouchDB community commits to using EUnit for their testing,
>>>> some help would be welcome in understanding whether that would be
>>>> fine. Suggestions?
>>>
>>> hey -- IANAL, just adding some anecdotal experience...
>>>
>>> as I understand it, if it's not shipped with your code, there should
>>> be no issue.  We in SpamAssassin have added optional dependencies in
>>> our test suite on LGPL and perl-licensed CPAN modules, similarly, in
>>> the past.
>>
>> Agreed - this case seems fine to me. Not too sure how to word it for
>> resolved.html, but this feels like the use case that the draft's
>> Environmental concept was targetting.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message