Brett, Larry
On Apr 2, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
's
>
> On 02/04/2011, at 7:08 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> Brett will have to write for himself. From my point of view, either a
>> proper Codehaus / Apache notice (one that claims copyright for
>> Codehaus and then grants the license) or a BSD license would be fine.
>> However, Brett likely knows something that I don't.
>>
>> In both cases, my view is, following Larry Rosen, nothing in the GPL
>> actually inhibits something like c-m-p from calling something like
>> cobertura.
>
> This is what my understanding is:
> - Cobertura must license under GPL, because they inherited much of the code
> from the defunct GPL jcoverage project. New pieces were Apache Licensed, but
> the whole is GPL.
> - We can license the plugin code however we want (currently ALv2). Due to the
> way it uses Cobertura, the whole plugin can not be under the terms of the
> just the AL - users would need to adhere to the terms of both (in the same
> way as Cobertura itself)
> - ALv2 is not compatible with GPLv2 due to the patent terms, making that
> situation a bit weird. BSD would make that simpler, but I'm not sure it
> actually matters.
> - Regardless, the headers should be fixed (there's a few instances in Mojo
> where this needs to happen)
> - I can't find the email, but I'm quite sure Ben or Bob ok'd Maven plugins
> that depend on GPL from a policy PoV. We could ask again if there's any
> concerns.
>
> I don't think there's any reason to limit continuing the work on these.
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> 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
