www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Cobertura's view of the apache license versus the GPL
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:13:10 GMT
Perhaps a small picture might help. So far, the situation is like this:

      Maven    =>  Cobertura-Maven-Plugin => Cobertura Ant Tasks => Cobertura
      ASL 2.0        ASL 2.0                            ASL 1.1
                GPL 2

And so far, we believed this to be fine.

Now we would like to change the picture like this:

      Maven    =>  Cobertura-Maven-Plugin Cobertura
      ASL 2.0        ASL 2.0                       GPL 2

Question is whether that's possible, assuming that we do not
distribute Cobertura's jar files or source code.

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye)

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

View raw message