You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> on 2007/11/19 02:35:45 UTC
Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Some java projects are using the maven cobertura[1] plugin[2] which
checks the code coverage of tests, producing a HTML report (see
Commons Math[3] for example). The report is a combination of HTML,
CSS, image and javascript files. The Javascript files have different
licenses:
1) customsorttypes.js has a GPL license
2) sortabletable.js and stringbuilder.js are available under three licenses:
- WebFX Non-Commercial License
- WebFX Commercial license
- GPL license
See the license headers in those files here:
http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/js/
Is it acceptable to distrubute these files as part of a projects
documentation in a release?
Niall
[1] http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/
[2] http://maven-plugins.sourceforge.net/maven-cobertura-plugin/
[3] http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
FYI, the files mentioned do have apache compatible license
equivalents in Dojo (http://dojotoolkit.org/downloads ) or probably a
few other javascript toolkits out there. The sortable table /
string utilities / etc. implementations should be more than enough to
handle whatever cobertura needs them for.
On Nov 19, 2007 10:42 AM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Niall Pemberton" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote on 11/18/2007 08:35:45
> PM:
>
> > Some java projects are using the maven cobertura[1] plugin[2] which
> > checks the code coverage of tests, producing a HTML report (see
> > Commons Math[3] for example). The report is a combination of HTML,
> > CSS, image and javascript files. The Javascript files have different
> > licenses:
> >
> > 1) customsorttypes.js has a GPL license
> > 2) sortabletable.js and stringbuilder.js are available under three
> licenses:
> > - WebFX Non-Commercial License
> > - WebFX Commercial license
> > - GPL license
> >
> > See the license headers in those files here:
> > http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/js/
> >
> > Is it acceptable to distrubute these files as part of a projects
> > documentation in a release?
>
> Subject to being corrected, I'd expect the answer to be no. I don't think
> GPL is on the list of approved licenses for included components of an
> Apache project. Are the javascript files really necessary? Can cobertura
> plugin produce a different format output that doesn't require those files?
> Jeff
>
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > [1] http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/
> > [2] http://maven-plugins.sourceforge.net/maven-cobertura-plugin/
> > [3] http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/index.html
> >
>
> Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
> (notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
> (web) http://www.beff.net/
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
On Nov 21, 2007 8:32 AM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> "Niall Pemberton" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote on 11/20/2007 06:26:22
> PM:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2007 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Subject to being corrected, I'd expect the answer to be no. I don't
> think
> > > GPL is on the list of approved licenses for included components of an
> > > Apache project. Are the javascript files really necessary? Can
> cobertura
> > > plugin produce a different format output that doesn't require those
> files?#
> >
> > Henri, Jeff, Jesse,
> >
> > Thanks for responding. A release of cobertura with an alternative
> > would be great, but thats not in my control. However I was hoping for
> > "hey no problem, its only documentation" type answers. I just went
> > back and read the (hopefully soon to be official) 3rd party license
> > policy/guidelines here:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> >
> > The second and third of the "Guiding principles" talk about "software"
> > and "products that depend on other software". Does this really apply
> > to documentation as well? Its not the software we develop, just some
> > generated reports about the software we develop. Surely that
> > documentation has zero impact on the license of the software we've
> > developed and therefore on the user.
>
> But, the javascript files are software. The fact that their use is solely
> to display the documentation isn't the point. And even if the weren't
> software, if they were just text, there would still be a problem.
I suspect that we'd be okay with this being on our website, but
projects would not be able to put that website into their download as
cheap documentation. Given the propensity of projects to do this,
especially maven generated sites which are likely to be the ones doing
cobertura, then I think we should be very strongly discouraging this
for anything except a report being placed in ~foo/.
> What I find surprising is that a development tool would include L/GPL code
> in what is in effect runtime support. That creates a trap of sorts if the
> user doesn't notice that the tool is embedding L/GPL code in their output.
> Although I wouldn't go as far as saying that all GPL javascript is evil, it
> certainly is troublesome from a licensing perspective.
JavaScript is just painful from a licensing point of view. Even the
permissive ones are painful as they often have a LICENSE file and
where are people supposed to put that on their website. Presumably the
same would apply for Applets, Flash etc. I suspect those cases are
just poorly handled currently.
LGPL/GPL is especially painful - it demands attribution next to the
copyright statement on your website [my interpretation anyway], and
wtf is linking in JavaScript :)
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 21, 2007 1:32 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> "Niall Pemberton" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote on 11/20/2007 06:26:22
> PM:
>
> > On Nov 19, 2007 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > Subject to being corrected, I'd expect the answer to be no. I don't
> think
> > > GPL is on the list of approved licenses for included components of an
> > > Apache project. Are the javascript files really necessary? Can
> cobertura
> > > plugin produce a different format output that doesn't require those
> files?#
> >
> > Henri, Jeff, Jesse,
> >
> > Thanks for responding. A release of cobertura with an alternative
> > would be great, but thats not in my control. However I was hoping for
> > "hey no problem, its only documentation" type answers. I just went
> > back and read the (hopefully soon to be official) 3rd party license
> > policy/guidelines here:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> >
> > The second and third of the "Guiding principles" talk about "software"
> > and "products that depend on other software". Does this really apply
> > to documentation as well? Its not the software we develop, just some
> > generated reports about the software we develop. Surely that
> > documentation has zero impact on the license of the software we've
> > developed and therefore on the user.
>
> But, the javascript files are software. The fact that their use is solely
> to display the documentation isn't the point. And even if the weren't
> software, if they were just text, there would still be a problem.
>
> >
> > In the "Software License Criteria" section it says:
> > "The purpose behind these additional requirements are to minimize the
> > chance that a user of an Apache product will create a derivative work
> > of a reciprocally-licensed portion of an Apache product without being
> > aware of the applicable requirements."
> >
> > I can't see how reading a HTML report that uses a javascript file for
> > some display effect places any additional requirements on a user's
> > derivative work?
>
> But, what if someone wanted to modify the project or combine it with some
> additional software and distribute it commercially? They would not be
> permitted (because of the javascript files) to use their normal commercial
> license terms, which is what the Guiding Principles are trying to address.
> Because of those files, the combined package would need to have at least 2
> licenses, the normal license for the bulk of the package, and the L/GPL for
> the javascript files.
>
> >
> > Niall
> >
>
> What I find surprising is that a development tool would include L/GPL code
> in what is in effect runtime support. That creates a trap of sorts if the
> user doesn't notice that the tool is embedding L/GPL code in their output.
> Although I wouldn't go as far as saying that all GPL javascript is evil, it
> certainly is troublesome from a licensing perspective.
OK thanks for taking the time to give a detailled answer.
Niall
> Jeff
>
> Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
> (notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
> (web) http://www.beff.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Niall Pemberton" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote on 11/20/2007 06:26:22
PM:
> On Nov 19, 2007 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Subject to being corrected, I'd expect the answer to be no. I don't
think
> > GPL is on the list of approved licenses for included components of an
> > Apache project. Are the javascript files really necessary? Can
cobertura
> > plugin produce a different format output that doesn't require those
files?#
>
> Henri, Jeff, Jesse,
>
> Thanks for responding. A release of cobertura with an alternative
> would be great, but thats not in my control. However I was hoping for
> "hey no problem, its only documentation" type answers. I just went
> back and read the (hopefully soon to be official) 3rd party license
> policy/guidelines here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>
> The second and third of the "Guiding principles" talk about "software"
> and "products that depend on other software". Does this really apply
> to documentation as well? Its not the software we develop, just some
> generated reports about the software we develop. Surely that
> documentation has zero impact on the license of the software we've
> developed and therefore on the user.
But, the javascript files are software. The fact that their use is solely
to display the documentation isn't the point. And even if the weren't
software, if they were just text, there would still be a problem.
>
> In the "Software License Criteria" section it says:
> "The purpose behind these additional requirements are to minimize the
> chance that a user of an Apache product will create a derivative work
> of a reciprocally-licensed portion of an Apache product without being
> aware of the applicable requirements."
>
> I can't see how reading a HTML report that uses a javascript file for
> some display effect places any additional requirements on a user's
> derivative work?
But, what if someone wanted to modify the project or combine it with some
additional software and distribute it commercially? They would not be
permitted (because of the javascript files) to use their normal commercial
license terms, which is what the Guiding Principles are trying to address.
Because of those files, the combined package would need to have at least 2
licenses, the normal license for the bulk of the package, and the L/GPL for
the javascript files.
>
> Niall
>
What I find surprising is that a development tool would include L/GPL code
in what is in effect runtime support. That creates a trap of sorts if the
user doesn't notice that the tool is embedding L/GPL code in their output.
Although I wouldn't go as far as saying that all GPL javascript is evil, it
certainly is troublesome from a licensing perspective.
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 19, 2007 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Niall Pemberton" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote on 11/18/2007 08:35:45
> PM:
>
> > Some java projects are using the maven cobertura[1] plugin[2] which
> > checks the code coverage of tests, producing a HTML report (see
> > Commons Math[3] for example). The report is a combination of HTML,
> > CSS, image and javascript files. The Javascript files have different
> > licenses:
> >
> > 1) customsorttypes.js has a GPL license
> > 2) sortabletable.js and stringbuilder.js are available under three
> licenses:
> > - WebFX Non-Commercial License
> > - WebFX Commercial license
> > - GPL license
> >
> > See the license headers in those files here:
> > http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/js/
> >
> > Is it acceptable to distrubute these files as part of a projects
> > documentation in a release?
>
> Subject to being corrected, I'd expect the answer to be no. I don't think
> GPL is on the list of approved licenses for included components of an
> Apache project. Are the javascript files really necessary? Can cobertura
> plugin produce a different format output that doesn't require those files?#
Henri, Jeff, Jesse,
Thanks for responding. A release of cobertura with an alternative
would be great, but thats not in my control. However I was hoping for
"hey no problem, its only documentation" type answers. I just went
back and read the (hopefully soon to be official) 3rd party license
policy/guidelines here:
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
The second and third of the "Guiding principles" talk about "software"
and "products that depend on other software". Does this really apply
to documentation as well? Its not the software we develop, just some
generated reports about the software we develop. Surely that
documentation has zero impact on the license of the software we've
developed and therefore on the user.
In the "Software License Criteria" section it says:
"The purpose behind these additional requirements are to minimize the
chance that a user of an Apache product will create a derivative work
of a reciprocally-licensed portion of an Apache product without being
aware of the applicable requirements."
I can't see how reading a HTML report that uses a javascript file for
some display effect places any additional requirements on a user's
derivative work?
Niall
P.S. Sorry you got this twice Jeff - I always forget the default
reply-to for this list is the individual, not the list
> Jeff
>
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > [1] http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/
> > [2] http://maven-plugins.sourceforge.net/maven-cobertura-plugin/
> > [3] http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/index.html
> >
>
> Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
> (notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
> (web) http://www.beff.net/
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Niall Pemberton" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote on 11/18/2007 08:35:45
PM:
> Some java projects are using the maven cobertura[1] plugin[2] which
> checks the code coverage of tests, producing a HTML report (see
> Commons Math[3] for example). The report is a combination of HTML,
> CSS, image and javascript files. The Javascript files have different
> licenses:
>
> 1) customsorttypes.js has a GPL license
> 2) sortabletable.js and stringbuilder.js are available under three
licenses:
> - WebFX Non-Commercial License
> - WebFX Commercial license
> - GPL license
>
> See the license headers in those files here:
> http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/js/
>
> Is it acceptable to distrubute these files as part of a projects
> documentation in a release?
Subject to being corrected, I'd expect the answer to be no. I don't think
GPL is on the list of approved licenses for included components of an
Apache project. Are the javascript files really necessary? Can cobertura
plugin produce a different format output that doesn't require those files?
Jeff
>
> Niall
>
> [1] http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/
> [2] http://maven-plugins.sourceforge.net/maven-cobertura-plugin/
> [3] http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/index.html
>
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Fwd: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
Date: Nov 18, 2007 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Maven Cobertura Plugin - GPL Javascript files
To: Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>
On Nov 18, 2007 8:35 PM, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some java projects are using the maven cobertura[1] plugin[2] which
> checks the code coverage of tests, producing a HTML report (see
> Commons Math[3] for example). The report is a combination of HTML,
> CSS, image and javascript files. The Javascript files have different
> licenses:
>
> 1) customsorttypes.js has a GPL license
> 2) sortabletable.js and stringbuilder.js are available under three licenses:
> - WebFX Non-Commercial License
> - WebFX Commercial license
> - GPL license
>
> See the license headers in those files here:
> http://commons.apache.org/math/cobertura/js/
>
> Is it acceptable to distrubute these files as part of a projects
> documentation in a release?
My opinion is that the answer is "No".
Non-permissive JavaScript is evil and should be banned.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org