You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by Yannick Menager <ym...@yahoo.co.uk> on 2001/06/20 18:51:00 UTC
Re[4]: Problems with licenses (GPL, LGPL) and task writing
Ok, another suggestion, what about providing a separate jarfile (like
there is currently optional, but with tasks licensed under GPL)
ie. the binaries made available would be
jakarta-ant-vX.X.tgz
jakarta-ant-vX.X-optionals.tgz
jakarta-ant-vX.X-optionals-glp.tgz
Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 11:28:40 AM, you wrote:
TV> From: Yannick Menager [mailto:ymenager@yahoo.co.uk]
>> Hello Tim,
>>
>> what if we had a defined API for say.. CVS Tasks.. and a series of
>> adaptors for multiple implementations.... would that be legal ?
>> maybe as an optional task, if the jcvs classes are there, it uses
>> them, if not.... Why hasn't that be done ? any legal reasons against ?
TV> Not sure I follow entirely, but here goes:
TV> If you developed a new ant task called "checkin" that did something like
TV> <checkin tool="cvs">
TV> <param name="repositry" value="cvs.apache.org"/>
TV> <fileset id="myfiles/>
TV> </checkin>
TV> Then I beleive you could do this:
TV> Give the checkin task had a published API that is:
TV> For tool="XXX" it would load ant-XXX.jar
TV> In that jar is will look for a "XXX_checkin" class.
TV> On that class it will use the methods
TV> * checkin( file )
TV> * setParam( name, value )
TV> Then you could write classes for
TV> sccs_checkin
TV> rcs_checkin
TV> cvs_checkin
TV> p4_checkin
TV> pvcs_checkin
TV> vss_checkin
TV> etc.
TV> Your cvs_checkin would have to be GPL'd if it used any other GPL'd
TV> code (eg some existing jCVS code).
TV> But the checkin task wouldn't, since it is not specific to the cvs
TV> task.
TV> I do beleive though, that you would have to implement at least one
TV> alternative implementation (such as rcs_checkin) to be truly safe.
TV> Then org.apache.tools.ant.taskdefs.checkin could be ASF licenced
TV> code, operating as a facade over the various implementations,
TV> each of which could be under any licence.
TV> BUT: IANAL, I have however had similar discussions with various
TV> people about such techniques.
TV> eg You could in theory write an implementation of readline that
TV> didn't actually do anything except read text from the terminal.
TV> If it had the same API as GNU-readline, then you could BSD
TV> licence it, and anyone could use it.
TV> Then users could drop GNU-readline in as a replacement, without
TV> you GPL'ing your program.
TV> My information is that the FSF would see that as an attempt to
TV> circumvent their licence, and they would seek legal injunction.
TV> I think I agree with them.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com