Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bimargulies@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.161.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=rHyP69i8vbPnnAkEW+ppwm+/ucOOeXiIoaVkeseuOtBz5g9u9lYeOtx5vfW1Gp0wub
         coV3xCUYi0xedtE7aCHdaXUA9WGC7YPBrZnHX0bQIp4aMfyx2o2HGjgmxDH1EqMR12pR
         /Y6wybtWn2vqZRiNONh/A0K5NBr3QAB4YUu/I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <712796.79875.qm@web27808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <AANLkTim3_B=W7EMWo+-jN7ov9X9dqz7uAoDgPbSoxvv9@mail.gmail.com>
	<712796.79875.qm@web27808.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 13:17:28 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinPLcDKA-hZ5yrs_XGKYtwBoHeGhxkswSa7vHJr@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cobertura's view of the apache license versus the GPL
From: Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Mark,

Well, no, not quite.

1. The 'tasks' that are executed include code that extends classes in
cobertura. These classes have Apache IP notices; invalid Apache IP
notices, no less, since they claim that the code has been licensed to
the Foundation when it was not (it lives at Codehaus). So the plugin
does contain code that compiles against cobertura, not just
command-line invocations.

2. A recent proposed patch to fix aggregation introduced more calls to
more Cobertura apis. This has produced a debate as to whether, on the
one hand, the existing implementation complies with the license page,
or on the other hand, whether the strictures of the license page have
any legal validity.

--benson

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