www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Cobertura's view of the apache license versus the GPL
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:23:53 GMT
Jochen,

I think it's also important to note that the distinction between
'Cobertura Ant Tasks' and 'Cobertura' is not reflected in a jar file
boundary. The same jar contains both the ant tasks and the rest of
their API

The license page says 'you may use the ant tasks under 1.1'. It
doesn't define the term 'ant tasks', so (to me) it's entirely unclear
whether this means 'you may use ant to run cobertura' or 'you may
incorporate cobertura in a larger component under the terms of 1.1 if
you only call the classes that make up the ant tasks.'

--benson


On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message