RE: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies? (Was: Co coon's Rhino+continuations fork)

[Ralph Goers <Ra...@digitalinsight.com>]

Lets take this to the extreme.  Pretend that Rhino was a GPL license.  Sure
I could download Rhino and get a running Cocoon.  But I could never sell a
product based on Cocoon unless I make my customers also download Rhino (and
I'm not sure even that would be legal).  Since so many parts of Cocoon want
to leverage Flow these days this would make the situation impossible.   

And although Rhino isn't GPL, from what I read of the Mozilla license it
also has the requirement that anything that it is packaged with must also be
under the Mozilla license, which makes it just as bad as the GPL from a
commercial standpoint.

I don't mean to pick on Rhino in particular here, but it is a convenient
example.

Ralph

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Torsten Curdt [mailto:tcurdt@vafer.org] 
Sent:	Friday, March 12, 2004 8:54 AM
To:	dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject:	Re: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies?
(Was: Co coon's Rhino+continuations fork)

 > Obviously, the kind of tricks being talked about here would
> not allow us to redistribute Cocoon. Our customers would have to get it
> themselves - which, of course, is totally unacceptable.

Wait, wait, wait... from what I understand you may!
...but *you* would have take care to respect all the
licenses that are included in this redistribution
by *yourself*! Seems like the ASF wants to step back
not covering the risk anymore.

Or am I here on the wrong track?
--
Torsten

Re: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies? (Was: Co coon's Rhino+continuations fork)

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Litrik De Roy wrote:

> Ralph Goers wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> And although Rhino isn't GPL, from what I read of the Mozilla license it
>> also has the requirement that anything that it is packaged with must 
>> also be
>> under the Mozilla license, which makes it just as bad as the GPL from a
>> commercial standpoint.
>> ...
>>
>> Ralph
>>  
>>
> Hum.... that's the same impression I got after reading the responses on 
> this list by some of the Mozilla people.
> 
> But there seems to be a difference in the MPL 
> (http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html) between modifying source code 
> and using the executable in a larger piece of software.
> 
> When you modify the source code 3.1 clearly states that these 
> modifications should be MPL as well: "The Modifications which You create 
> or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License".
> 
> But when you simply use the executable version of MPL code in a larger 
> piece of software 3.7 says the following:
> "You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code 
> not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work 
> as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements 
> of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code."
> 
> Note that the end of the line says "Covered Code" and not "Larger Work". 
> So the "Covered Code" that is MPL, stays MPL. But anything surrounding 
> it ("Larger Work") does *not* automatically become MPL as well . This is 
> (IMHO) the difference with GPL.

you are 100% correct.

The MPL is *NOT* a reciprocal license (viral is a bad term) in respect 
to the code that surrounds it, but it is for the modifications inside.

So, this means that if Chris puts those modifications under the MPL 1.1, 
we are kosher.

Anyway, people, let's not freak out: there is *NOTHING* going on to 
change the status quo. What you were able to do yesterday with the code, 
you are able to do today and you'll be able to continue to do tomorrow.

Period.

The ASF is just trying cover all possible ass here, so that we can serve 
our users better in order to guarantee that we'll still be around tomorrow.

Because, since SCO arrived in town you never know.

-- 
Stefano.

Re: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies? (Was: Co coon's Rhino+continuations fork)

[Litrik De Roy <co...@litrik.com>]

Ralph Goers wrote:

>...
>And although Rhino isn't GPL, from what I read of the Mozilla license it
>also has the requirement that anything that it is packaged with must also be
>under the Mozilla license, which makes it just as bad as the GPL from a
>commercial standpoint.
>...
>
>Ralph
>  
>
Hum.... that's the same impression I got after reading the responses on 
this list by some of the Mozilla people.

But there seems to be a difference in the MPL 
(http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html) between modifying source code 
and using the executable in a larger piece of software.

When you modify the source code 3.1 clearly states that these 
modifications should be MPL as well: "The Modifications which You create 
or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License".

But when you simply use the executable version of MPL code in a larger 
piece of software 3.7 says the following:
"You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code 
not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work 
as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements 
of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code."

Note that the end of the line says "Covered Code" and not "Larger Work". 
So the "Covered Code" that is MPL, stays MPL. But anything surrounding 
it ("Larger Work") does *not* automatically become MPL as well . This is 
(IMHO) the difference with GPL.

But IANAL...

-- 

Litrik De Roy
www.litrik.com

Re: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies? (Was: Co coon's Rhino+continuations fork)

[Torsten Curdt <tc...@vafer.org>]

> Lets take this to the extreme.  Pretend that Rhino was a GPL license.  Sure
> I could download Rhino and get a running Cocoon.  But I could never sell a
> product based on Cocoon unless I make my customers also download Rhino (and
> I'm not sure even that would be legal).  Since so many parts of Cocoon want
> to leverage Flow these days this would make the situation impossible.   

Well, since you put it to the extreme - you got a point

> And although Rhino isn't GPL, from what I read of the Mozilla license it
> also has the requirement that anything that it is packaged with must also be
> under the Mozilla license, which makes it just as bad as the GPL from a
> commercial standpoint.

I guess the problem is that "packaging with" is a bit blurry.

What are we talking about? What a about a RH CD which
comes with Mozilla, which is under MPL. Does all packages
on the CD have to be under MPL?

I personally don't think downloading-on-demand is
really that bad at all. (If done nicely!) But let's wait
what the board comes up with. It may or may not expose
this discussion being a waste of time ;)
--
Torsten