www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: Cobertura's view of the apache license versus the GPL
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:49:26 GMT
please note that this doesn't affect the cobertura-maven-plugin as we only invoke cobertura
via cli resp. via reflection.

Afaik the ant plugin is implemented in a similar fashion.

LieGrue,
strub

--- On Fri, 4/1/11, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
> Subject: Cobertura's view of the apache license versus the GPL
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Date: Friday, April 1, 2011, 3:40 PM
> Disclaimer:
> 
> The following is only peripherally an Apache issue, at
> most. If you
> read this and are inclined to reply by explaining that to
> me, I can't
> stop you, but I beg your forbearance.
> 
> The following web page
> 
> http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html
> 
> makes a claim: that 'license incompatibility' prevents the
> use of an
> ant plugin containing GPL code unless there's an extra
> level of JVM in
> there somewhere. Reading Larry Rosen's writings, this
> strikes me as
> fantasy. If someone bundled up ant and a gpl plugin and
> distributed
> the combination of the two, then there might, perhaps, be
> an argument
> about aggregation versus derivation. Personally, even that
> strikes me
> as weak.
> 
> My first question is, would anyone official at ASF feel
> that it was a
> worthwhile use of time to try to convince the owner of this
> page to
> stop publishing a false and misleading claim about the
> terms of the
> AL? This isn't intended rhetorically; I pretty much expect
> that the
> answer will be 'no'.
> 
> My second question has to do with the recent discussion of
> reflection
> as a solution to GPL dependencies. I fully appreciate that
> here at ASF
> we have multiple reasons to avoid GPL dependencies. Even if
> we all
> follow Larry Rosen's line of reasoning that calling a
> subroutine
> doesn't make a derived work, etc, we want to build things
> usable to
> people who don't agree, or who are lumbered with managers
> or lawyers
> or customers who dont'.
> 
> At the same time, I'm comparing two scenarios:
> 
> 1) Source code that compiles with no GPL-licensed artifacts
> in the
> same county. Maybe there's a test module that, when asked,
> downloads a
> GPL item and uses it in a test.
> 
> 2) Source code with a build system (e.g. Maven) that
> automatically
> downloads GPL-licensed artifacts and uses them to enable
> compilation
> -- however, the resulting 'thing that gets built' works
> fine at
> runtime if you leave all the GPL-licensed items in orbit
> around
> Jupiter.
> 
> Is this a distinction with a difference? (Again, I'm not
> asking if
> it's a big enough difference to change ASF policy. I'm
> trying to
> understand this to address a situation outside the ASF.)
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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