You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> on 2015/06/08 08:57:26 UTC
Groovy release and LEGAL-171
Hi!
Groovy is currently voting a release where exactly
the same issue as LEGAL-171 got raised. Their
tarball currently contains the file in question:
buildSrc/src/main/java/JavadocFixTool.java
with the LICENSE described in LEGAL-171.
My understanding is that this file should NOT
be redistributed by releases of software under
ALv2 even though Groovy only uses it during
the build and doesn't create a shipable binary.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Groovy release and LEGAL-171
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
>
> Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it could be replaced by
>> the right flags of the maven-javadoc-plugin...
>>
>
> can it be used outside maven? Becuase we are talking about a gradle build.
>
Ah, right, it's a Gradle-based build... not Maven, sorry. As I said, I did
not even look to the build nor the code.
I do not know the details that the JavadocFixTool.java actually fixes. But
the Gradle DSL looks to support some custom options when calling the
javadoc binary:
https://docs.gradle.org/current/dsl/org.gradle.api.tasks.javadoc.Javadoc.html#org.gradle.api.tasks.javadoc.Javadoc:options
So maybe that would be a workaround to avoid the custom code...
Another option, since looks the GPL code is there to fix CVE-2013-1571,
could be to limit the build to non-affected versions (CVE-2013-1571 only
affects Oracle Java SE 7 Update 21 and earlier, 6 Update 45 and earlier,
and 5.0 Update 45 and earlier). I have no idea how you could do that in
Gradle, but I'm pretty sure the DSL has enough expressiveness to support
something like that, for instance
http://mrhaki.blogspot.co.at/2010/11/gradle-goodness-set-java-version.html
The goal is to not distribute, i.e., to not depend, on that code for a
clean build. How is another story... for it looks you're plenty of options.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: Groovy release and LEGAL-171
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 08.06.2015 09:07, schrieb Sergio Fernández:
> Hi,
>
> my two cents without knowing in detail the issue:
>
> Could I make a clean build from a source release without that file?
>
> Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it could be replaced by
> the right flags of the maven-javadoc-plugin...
can it be used outside maven? Becuase we are talking about a gradle build.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Groovy release and LEGAL-171
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
It can easily be replaced with a Gradle plugin.
2015-06-08 9:07 GMT+02:00 Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>:
> Hi,
>
> my two cents without knowing in detail the issue:
>
> Could I make a clean build from a source release without that file?
>
> Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it could be replaced by
> the right flags of the maven-javadoc-plugin...
>
> Other opinions better formed than mine are welcomed to the discussion.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Groovy is currently voting a release where exactly
> > the same issue as LEGAL-171 got raised. Their
> > tarball currently contains the file in question:
> > buildSrc/src/main/java/JavadocFixTool.java
> > with the LICENSE described in LEGAL-171.
> >
> > My understanding is that this file should NOT
> > be redistributed by releases of software under
> > ALv2 even though Groovy only uses it during
> > the build and doesn't create a shipable binary.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
Re: Groovy release and LEGAL-171
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
my two cents without knowing in detail the issue:
Could I make a clean build from a source release without that file?
Without looking to the source code, I'm pretty sure it could be replaced by
the right flags of the maven-javadoc-plugin...
Other opinions better formed than mine are welcomed to the discussion.
Cheers,
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Groovy is currently voting a release where exactly
> the same issue as LEGAL-171 got raised. Their
> tarball currently contains the file in question:
> buildSrc/src/main/java/JavadocFixTool.java
> with the LICENSE described in LEGAL-171.
>
> My understanding is that this file should NOT
> be redistributed by releases of software under
> ALv2 even though Groovy only uses it during
> the build and doesn't create a shipable binary.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co