www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralph Goers (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LEGAL-45) optional dependency on svnkit
Date Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:49:59 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-45?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12747631#action_12747631

Ralph Goers commented on LEGAL-45:

I wrote an Apache Commons VFS "Provider" for SVNKit. Due to SVNKit's licensing, I have not
added the provider to VFS (or made it open source at all for that matter). However,  discussions
on legal-discuss lead me to believe that including the provider in VFS would be OK because:
a) it is optional - SVNKit would be listed as an optional dependency in the pom.xml and VFS
would not include support for the provider unless the SVNKit jar is present.
b) SVNKit would not be distributed by the ASF. The user would have to specifically add the
dependency to their pom.xml to build their application or add it to the appropriate classpath

SVNKit's license is at http://svnkit.com/license.html

> optional dependency on svnkit
> -----------------------------
>                 Key: LEGAL-45
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-45
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Brett Porter
> SVNKit is under a license that is somewhat similar to the GPL (it is almost identical
to the sleepycat license): http://svnkit.com/license.html
> It is unclear from the legal documentation on the status of *optional* modules. 
> Maven has developed an abstraction layer for various SCM systems, generally by running
their CLI tools. We would like to offer a provider that uses svnkit as an optional alternative
to the svn command line tools:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/scm/trunk/maven-scm-providers/maven-scm-providers-svn/maven-scm-provider-svnjava/
> The license of SVNKit doesn't affect our ability to distribute the provider under the
Apache License, but anyone distributing the SVNKit binary must also distribute their code
under an open source license.
> If we did this, we would keep the following:
> - it will not be made the default provider for SVN, that will remain the svn.exe based
> - it will be an optional part of the build from source (through a Maven profile), and
will not be dependend on by other parts of the code
> - instructions on the site about how to use the svnkit provider would spell out that
it requires the external dependency and that it is under a more restrictive license
> - we don't bundle and distribute svnkit as part of our releases
> Note that there is a reasonable alternate home, but it would be a shame to move the code
out of Maven's oversight for this purpose alone.
> The discussion thread is here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-scm-dev/200903.mbox/%3c9948cb690903181722s2431ec04nc6ea48e3cc2d1bc7@mail.gmail.com%3e
> Is this an acceptable use case?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

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

View raw message