On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Martin Heidegger wrote: > On 10/02/2012 13:38, Dave Fisher wrote: >> I understand your POV. But here I am speaking as a Mentor. >> >> This project needs to make sure that the dependencies to the project that we >> require our users to download are acceptable in combination with the Apache >> License 2.0. >> >> It would be very bad if releases and project graduation from the Apache >> Incubator was blocked due to an unfortunate choice of unit test technology. > Thank you a lot for explaining that. That info is really helpful! Are the > unit tests part of the things that Apache Flex offers as download to the user? > > In any case: That means that the contribution of FlexUnit to Apache (under > the APL) would be preferable, right? > > Short overview: > ASUnit (MIT) uses as3reflection (No-License) > FlexUnit (MIT) uses hamcrest (BSD) > > Mockito-Flex (MIT) uses ASMock(BSD), hamcrest(BSD) > Mockolate (MIT) uses Floxy(BSD), FLemit(BSD), asx (No-License), > hamcrest(BSD) > > FlexMonkey (GPL) uses as3commons (APL), hamcrest(BSD)
Good. Now what is needed is if a particular set is preferred by the Apache Flex PPMC then the packaging needs to be discussed with legal-disc...@apache.org. The links that I have provided describe questions asked and answered. Still all situations may be unique and worth asking for further clarification. If a particular unit test framework is best, but more complex from a license perspective, it will be worth the effort to determine the best way to package it. I'm not saying any of the above solutions are out of bounds, just that there is the license dimension to add to the evaluation of each potential solution. Regards, Dave > > There are a few other open source testing projects online: AS3Unit from > Libspark, Fluint, Funit, etc. but most of them seem abandoned or not really > adopted. > > yours > Martin. > > >
