On 19-Mar-09, at 8:17 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
So the Brett proposal looks fine too.
I can mark the svnjava provider as optionnal and explain why on the
scm site and explain how to use it.
The svn library is not optional for this component to work. You
require it to run.
SVNKit and that's not LGPL, it's a license we've never validated here.
It's a custom license called the TMate Open Source License.
Brett's proposal is not fine.
You may not like the way the legal process is here but you can't end-
run the safe guards in place by saying something is optional when it
clearly is not. And then trying to draw an analogy to a project where
the license isn't even the same and a completely custom one at that.
Ask Apache legal. Explain to them you're marking optional what isn't
and show them the TMate license and see what they tell you.
--
Olivier
2009/3/19 Jason van Zyl <jvan...@sonatype.com>:
From my experience asking anyone about anything legal has never been
resolved in any timely manner.
Whether grand fathered or anything else. Discussions have gone on
for a very
long time.
Olivier if you want to release it then I would just taking it to
mojo and
then there are no issues.
On 19-Mar-09, at 5:12 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 19/03/2009, at 7:29 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 19-Mar-09, at 1:25 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
Ok. It's was not really clear for me.
There is precedent - we grandfathered in Checkstyle which is LGPL
as it is
just a dependency of a plugin, which we don't actually distribute.
The general talk - though not confirmed - is that optional
dependencies
that the user must obtain themselves could be ok. There isn't a
legal
problem with the combination, but rather a policy one that you don't
distribute something that is essentially useless without a
dependency of a
stronger license.
We should ask, but I personally think this is ok, as long as:
- it is not made the default provider
- instructions on the site about how to use it spell out that it
requires
the dependency and that it is not under the AL
- we don't bundle and distribute
Technically we are not redistributing anything and we can ask the
board
for clarification because in the strictest sense we do not
redistribute. But
I think folks here would interpret a dependency in your POM as
being
equivalent.
No need to ask the board, you can file a request here:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------
