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 18:34:53 GMT
>
> Even if we don't Cobertura's jar files or source code with
> Cobertura-Maven-Plugin but on the other hand, and IIUC, a user will
> not be able to run Cobertura-Maven-Plugin unless Cobertura's jar files
> are in the class-path, in which position does this put
> Cobertura-Maven-Plugin as licensed under ASL 2.0 relative to the usage
> restrictions of GPL 2.0 ?. Looking forward to your reply.

Mohammad,

The interesting thing about maven is that it does this for you.  Now,
I want to be careful about 'we'. The cobertura-maven-plugin is not an
ASF product. It comes from Codehaus.

When someone releases the c-m-p, a jar file goes to maven central and
a pom file goes with it. The pom files declares, "Hey, to use this,
you also need these two cobertura jars."

So, when I create a maven POM for a build and specify the c-m-p, and
run a build, maven downloads the c-m-p pom and jar. It reads the pom,
sees the dependency, and then downloads the cobertura jars.

Net result: I (the end user) have both AL code and the GPL code
running, and stored on my disk in my local maven repo. However, at
least by my interpretation, no one has published a work that combines
them. The c-m-p as published doesn't incorporate the GPL code, it just
expresses a requirement. Maven itself doesn't incorporate either.


--benson

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


Mime
View raw message