On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Michael MacFadden
<michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please referer to the previous email from Angus posted to the dev list
> titles "Release Update" on 9/29/12:
>
> ------
>
> Hi All,
> The last review for licensing stuff is up, i'd appreciate it if you all
> looked at it and pointed out any errors i've made.
>
> There's a couple of things going on at once at the moment:
> -i'm in contact with the libIDN author, who is happy to release the
> software under the Apache license, which means we can keep using that once
> a new release comes out
> -the other two libraries junit and emma both think the best option is to
> obfuscate the code somehow like ant, if anyone has any experience in doing
> it speaking up would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Š
> -------
>
> I don't think we are thinking about obfuscating OUR code. While I don't
> have the details, it seems like there is some issue with junit and emma in
> terms of licnsensing that some how obfuscating those libraries jars would
> solve.
>
>
Thanks all - I understand now, either as a legal fig leaf or
speed-bump for unintended forking, included libraries can benefit from
obfuscation. As this method has apparently been standardized in other
Apache projects, I look forward to hearing the details if you get the
chance to post to the list. I had forgotten how java projects tend to
bundle dependencies rather than just announce them. Good thing to
learn - thanks
