I asked Larry Rosen for some *informal* legal advice. He's written a
book on open source licensing and a legal advisor to the ASF:
--- begin quote ----
Cobertura's licensing model is nonsense. Distinguishing between "ant
tasks" and "the rest of Cobertura" is meaningless to me. I suppose
this is the gist of what they want:
"And because these ant tasks are not GPL-compatable, but the rest
of Cobertura is GPL, when these ant tasks invoke Cobertura they
must do so by exec'ing a new JVM."
Do we? Even if we do, why would Cobertura think that such an awkward
license combination would ever pass OSI muster?
Many of these so-called dual open source licensing arrangements I see
on Sourceforge projects serve no useful purpose other than to
accommodate to the strange GPL linking interpretations promoted by
some.
As far as I'm concerned, we can take the software under the most
liberal license available (AL 1.1) and ignore the GPL license entirely
for our purposes.
/Larry
--- end quote ---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
