Folks, Yes, the gid change would be a brief but sharp pain, and if there really isn't a license problem, who needs it?
I don't claim to know anything about codehaus governance or licensing policy. If you give me commit, I'll clean up the headers, neaten up anything else in need of neatening, and push out a release. If you need some sort of Codehaus CLA from me, just point me at it, though I did have commit at codehaus for wstx at one point so I may already be assimilated. I trust that you two (Brett and Robert) can sort this out soonishly. --benson On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > The main advantage is not having to change the group ID. I don't think you'd > be able to publish to o.c.mojo via ossrh. > > I think there has been some miscommunication. Combining the plugin under it's > license and Cobertura under GPL certainly creates a work that is more > restrictive - but it's still open source and Codehaus have said that from a > policy PoV they are ok with that. > > What should change is the license headers, which use the ASF ones instead. It > might be better to use a BSD license for better compatibility with the GPL. > For my contributions, I'm fine with that. > > I'm fine with Benson having commit rights if he is keen to maintain it. > > - Brett > > On 01/04/2011, at 6:53 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> Hello Mojo Developers, >> >> We're using cobertura at my job, and we'd really like aggregation to >> work. So, I picked up MCOBERTURA-65 and added some testing to it in >> the hopes of a commit. >> >> I just got bad news from Robert Scholte. There is a longstanding >> problem of license friction with this plugin where the cobertura >> license and the codehaus license don't play well together. The >> original MCOBERTURA-65 patch already trangressed a 'what can you call' >> boundary here. >> >> Hypothetically, the patch could be reworked to stay in bounds. >> >> However, it seems to me to be wasteful to build and maintain a maven >> plugin for a fundamentally GPL component (cobertura) in an environment >> that puts barriers on writing code that makes subroutine calls to GPL >> code. To me, this is what github was invented for. >> >> It's hard for my to justify the effort of reworking this patch to get >> what I want rather than making a fork. My question is this. How many >> other people are reading this email who might, in any circumstance, >> contribute to the ongoing maintenance of a cobertura maven plugin? How >> many of you would cheerfully join me in maintaining a copy on github >> published via ossrh? In other words, what's the advantage, to anyone, >> of keeping this code at codehaus? >> >> --benson margulies >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> > > -- > Brett Porter > br...@apache.org > http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ > http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
