You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@taverna.apache.org by Stian Soiland-Reyes <so...@cs.manchester.ac.uk> on 2015/01/08 13:27:50 UTC
Beanshell under Apache?
(CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the proposed Beanshell
incubator.
Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project for a workflow
system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we understood it's
official release to be under LGPL we are facing the requirement to
keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit of a challenge
- specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an easy "Install
Taverna Extras" button.
I went through again the archives at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3CCAJO+UbuNm7aHmov_4tVt6j8nOJMCmMPddH1xONfW5b00tY6i2w@mail.gmail.com%3E
it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really get accepted -
but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons anyway?
I am unable to find any further trace of it - so apparently nothing happened :(
Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we able to kickstart
this back again?
The source at http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
(2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it into JAR-form.
It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so
should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be
better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna -
https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more
active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support (using 2.0b1) -
but they only includes it if the build has "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is
dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which
could somewhat be OK under Apache:
http://beanshell.org/license.html
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move
Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
<do...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> I can however see that there is a danger that the
>> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also lead to "Need to
>> release A so I can release B so I can release C" problem when you are
>> propagating changes downstream, and then there's the danger of the
>> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know that before doing
>> several releases). Other Taverna developers with experience of the 2.x
>> releases might want to have a say on this.
>
>
> I think you've about covered everything. One point of interest is that
> we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate repository model for a
> few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well. What I'd do for the
> cases where we had a feature of the server that depended on a specific
> change elsewhere (such as a change in how some command line option was
> processed) was to do a feature branch for that specific thing, so that
> we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that feature hit an
> identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and could do the merge then.
>
> The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a state where it would be
> buildable, testable and near releasable at any time. (Doing a release
> was a matter of adjusting version numbers for various things and setting
> a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was possible because
> the server was only loosely coupled to the engine, made most development
> easy. (The odd times when releases happened which Stian disapproved of
> ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need of a fix and the
> time to the next engine release was huge.)
>
> I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff being LGPL causing
> problems is a particular problem, as removing it is extremely disruptive
> to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance of having an
> existing workflow that will function with the new system to about 0%;
> virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the wild use Beanshells.
> The chance of getting all that wild code ported to something else is
> also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a nicely-licensed library for
> transforming Beanshell code into some other language. :-D)
>
> Donal.
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by alaninmcr <al...@googlemail.com>.
On 08/01/2015 13:19, alaninmcr wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 13:03, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> So for now then, the main thing would just be to include whatever
>> NOTICE markings are required by the Sun Public License and use the
>> 2.0b4 JAR as-is.
>>
>> I'll re-add beanshell-activity to
>> https://github.com/taverna-incubator/taverna-engine-common-activities
>>
>>
>> Alan - your experimental javax.script code - where does it live? It's
>> for Taverna 2.5?
>
> It is at https://github.com/taverna/taverna-script-activity and
> https://github.com/taverna/taverna-script-activity-ui . Yes for 2.5.
Also maybe worth noting http://rforge.net/rscript/ which does a
ScriptEngine to call Rserve. However, rscript is GPL :(
Alan
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by alaninmcr <al...@googlemail.com>.
On 08/01/2015 13:03, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> So for now then, the main thing would just be to include whatever
> NOTICE markings are required by the Sun Public License and use the
> 2.0b4 JAR as-is.
>
> I'll re-add beanshell-activity to
> https://github.com/taverna-incubator/taverna-engine-common-activities
>
>
> Alan - your experimental javax.script code - where does it live? It's
> for Taverna 2.5?
It is at https://github.com/taverna/taverna-script-activity and
https://github.com/taverna/taverna-script-activity-ui . Yes for 2.5.
> We still end up with rshell-activity on the taverna-extras, which is
> important for many users, but not as widespread used across workflows
> as beanshell (mainly as the local workers are done in Beanshell).
We can ask Simon Urbanek the developer(s?) of REngine if there is
anything he/we can do about it.
> Installing Taverna 3 plugins for the server should be easier than in
> 2.5 - as 3.x plugins are single files that can be dropped in on the
> file system.
and we have seen it demonstrated :)
Alan
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 08/01/15 16:36, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> The NOTICE file (in the Apache Taverna distribution, not inside
> taverna-beanshell-activity.jar ) is presumably a prominent label.
I'm not familiar enough with what Taverna will actually ship as
binaries. Source confusion is the big issue though not the end.
In the Taverna distribution in any form there would not be a copy of the
beanshell.org jar?
If not, will the end user be aware they need to assemble it to get he
SPL code?
Note also beanshell.org says:
"""
The "cost" of this software is simply to let us know how you are using
BeanShell.
"""
which is moral obligation even if not legal. Respect for their work
means we ought to not hide that request.
>
> I think we have several CDDL dependencies from Java XML and so, they are
> also category-B. as long as they are JAR only then there is no "source
> confusion".
Consider some one/some group wishing to take Taverna, modify it, add to
it, combine it with other open source stuff and publish open source.
Are they clearly aware of the implications on them by the SPL? My
opinion is that maven used to get a blank set of things, recursive
dependences and all, then it is not a clear action in response to the
cat-B. To emphais - that's my current opinion; maybe/hopefully another
mentor has more experience here - this is the first time I've had to
deal with the SPL.
> Beanshell 2.0b4 (SPL/LGPL) we have only ever used it as a jar from Maven
> central. You need to go to beanshell.org to find the source code manually.
Andy
PS Good catch on
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
> On 8 Jan 2015 16:05, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 08/01/15 13:03, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>>> So for now then, the main thing would just be to include whatever
>>> NOTICE markings are required by the Sun Public License and use the
>>> 2.0b4 JAR as-is.
>>>
>>
>> It's not just NOTICE for category-B:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>
>> """
>> By attaching a prominent label to the distribution and *requiring an
>> explicit action by the user* to get the reciprocally-licensed source, users
>> are less likely to be unaware of restrictions significantly different from
>> those of the Apache License.
>> """
>>
>> My emphasis.
>>
>> Taverna may end up with processes around cat-B stuff so unless something
>> else requires it as well, then avoiding now saves time in the long run and
>> is nicer to users.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <so...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>.
The NOTICE file (in the Apache Taverna distribution, not inside
taverna-beanshell-activity.jar ) is presumably a prominent label.
I think we have several CDDL dependencies from Java XML and so, they are
also category-B. as long as they are JAR only then there is no "source
confusion".
Beanshell 2.0b4 (SPL/LGPL) we have only ever used it as a jar from Maven
central. You need to go to beanshell.org to find the source code manually.
On 8 Jan 2015 16:05, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 08/01/15 13:03, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>> So for now then, the main thing would just be to include whatever
>> NOTICE markings are required by the Sun Public License and use the
>> 2.0b4 JAR as-is.
>>
>
> It's not just NOTICE for category-B:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
> """
> By attaching a prominent label to the distribution and *requiring an
> explicit action by the user* to get the reciprocally-licensed source, users
> are less likely to be unaware of restrictions significantly different from
> those of the Apache License.
> """
>
> My emphasis.
>
> Taverna may end up with processes around cat-B stuff so unless something
> else requires it as well, then avoiding now saves time in the long run and
> is nicer to users.
>
> Andy
>
>
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 08/01/15 13:03, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> So for now then, the main thing would just be to include whatever
> NOTICE markings are required by the Sun Public License and use the
> 2.0b4 JAR as-is.
It's not just NOTICE for category-B:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
"""
By attaching a prominent label to the distribution and *requiring an
explicit action by the user* to get the reciprocally-licensed source,
users are less likely to be unaware of restrictions significantly
different from those of the Apache License.
"""
My emphasis.
Taverna may end up with processes around cat-B stuff so unless something
else requires it as well, then avoiding now saves time in the long run
and is nicer to users.
Andy
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <so...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>.
So for now then, the main thing would just be to include whatever
NOTICE markings are required by the Sun Public License and use the
2.0b4 JAR as-is.
I'll re-add beanshell-activity to
https://github.com/taverna-incubator/taverna-engine-common-activities
Alan - your experimental javax.script code - where does it live? It's
for Taverna 2.5?
We still end up with rshell-activity on the taverna-extras, which is
important for many users, but not as widespread used across workflows
as beanshell (mainly as the local workers are done in Beanshell).
Installing Taverna 3 plugins for the server should be easier than in
2.5 - as 3.x plugins are single files that can be dropped in on the
file system.
On 8 January 2015 at 12:53, alaninmcr <al...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 12:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so
>> should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be
>> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna -
>> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
>
>
> Dredging my memory, there was some attempt to support BSF in Taverna 1 but
> it did not work well.
>
>
>> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more
>> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
>
>
> That is what I was playing with for running Beanshells in a more general
> script activity as it (correctly IMO) works with javax.script
>
> [snip]
>
>> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is
>> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which
>> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
>>
>> http://beanshell.org/license.html
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>
>>
>> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move
>> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
>
>
> I agree, "yay!" and we can worry later about subsuming beanshells into
> something more general.
>
> Alan
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by alaninmcr <al...@googlemail.com>.
On 08/01/2015 12:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
[snip]
> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so
> should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be
> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna -
> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
Dredging my memory, there was some attempt to support BSF in Taverna 1
but it did not work well.
> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more
> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
That is what I was playing with for running Beanshells in a more general
script activity as it (correctly IMO) works with javax.script
[snip]
> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is
> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which
> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
>
> http://beanshell.org/license.html
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>
> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move
> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
I agree, "yay!" and we can worry later about subsuming beanshells into
something more general.
Alan
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Thanks a lot for your effort Stian, much more than appreciated! :)
I will try to have a look at the Maven build during the weekend, you kinda
inspired me :D
My Bintray ID is `simonetripodi`, many thanks in advance for adding me in
the deployer list
Have a nice day, all the best!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thank you both. :)
>
>
> I have taken the liberty of deploying the compiled bsh-2.0b5.jar
> (built from your latest src release) under
> https://bintray.com/beanshell/Beanshell/bsh/ Maven repository
> (together with -sources and -javadoc - for that Eclipse/Maven
> goodness) and added the svn tag 2.0b5.
>
> It's still built with ant - moving the build to Maven would require a
> bit more effort -- see
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=12
>
>
>
> It should appear in Maven Central after bintray accepts the new entry.
>
> I used <groupId>org.apache-extras.beanshell</groupId> as that seems
> already to be in use:
>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache-extras/
>
>
>
> Let me know your bintray usernames and I can add who else needs to be
> in for beanshell - there is no mailing list, is there?
>
>
> I've added
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/wiki/Download
>
>
> Apache Taverna folks - I've modified taverna-beanshell-activity to use
> this 2.0b5 JAR instead - no need to worry more about the Sun Public
> License. :)
>
>
> https://github.com/taverna-incubator/taverna-engine-common-activities/blob/master/taverna-beanshell-activity/pom.xml#L69
>
> The need for <repository> here should disappear in a day or two. Sadly
> this bsh.jar is not yet an OSGi bundle, so I had to add an
> Embed-Dependency, but that should not affect anything, at least not
> now that it is bsh under Apache License.
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2015 at 01:51, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> > (Oops .. I forgot to use the Apache smtp relay so the previous message
> was
> > probably discarded as spam)
> >
> > Hello guys;
> >
> > The LGPL/SPL licensing text is just left over from the old licensing: I
> will
> > take care of
> > that. About the usage in Apache OpenOffice, I have just been lazy. It is
> not
> > urgent
> > since SPL is category B but the Apache OpenOffice port in FreeBSD already
> > uses
> > the new ALv2 code.
> >
> > AFAICT, the code is license clean. Do note that all the source files
> carry
> > an Apache
> > License 2 header and the code was already submitted to the Apache
> Software
> > Foundation under a SGA so you can just take the code and use it without
> > delay.
> > The code is straightforward to build with Ant.
> >
> > I added the requested addresses as new committers in apache-extras. About
> > the general state of the code: note that we don't pass all the tests. I
> > would've
> > liked to run coverity scan over the code but I never found time so I
> > leave it as a suggestion for future development.
> >
> > Welcome and enjoy!
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
> > On 08/01/2015 01:25 p.m., Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> That makes sense, thanks for that!
> >>
> >> So it is just a glip with the spurious LGPL license file, you say. Phuh!
> >>
> >> You can perhaps add Google Code accounts stian@mygrid.org.uk
> >> <ma...@mygrid.org.uk> and alan@mygrid.org.uk
> >> <ma...@mygrid.org.uk> as we have both been dealing with the
> beanshell
> >> scripting.
> >>
> >> A groupId might need to be sorted for Maven, separate from
> org.beanshell I
> >> guess.
> >>
> >> Or would we then be able to final to import the code into Apache Commons
> >> as initially planned and encouraged?
> >>
> >> On 8 Jan 2015 18:15, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetripodi@apache.org
> >> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Stian!
> >> I added Pedro in CC who's the guy who helped on migrating the
> >> codebase :)
> >>
> >> So, IIRC, BS original author donated the codebase and signed a CLA
> >> in order to trasfer the rights to the ASF, if it hasn't released
> >> yet it is really just a matter of checking license (header,
> >> NOTICE, ...) and make the first release.
> >>
> >> If someone from Taverna is interested on taking part to the
> >> project, just let us know so we can add you in the committers
> >> list, so we can work towards a first release all together. In that
> >> way you won't need to include Beanshell as Taverna extra... does
> >> it make sense?
> >>
> >> All the best!
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> >> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk
> >> <ma...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself,
> >> real life often comes in the way of good intentions..
> >>
> >> I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what
> >> we need. OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason.
> >>
> >> But we have two small issues;
> >>
> >> A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to
> >> publish it as org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have
> >> to prepare this JAR ouside Apache?
> >>
> >> B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed --
> >>
> >>
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
> >>
> >> On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi"
> >> <simonetripodi@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian!
> >> thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very
> >> appreciated :)
> >>
> >> Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very
> >> bad timing, we were not able to coordinate to each other
> >> in order to promptly follow-up the discussion and then
> >> some other things happened in the private lives (I got a
> >> new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)...
> >>
> >> BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache
> >> OpenOffice didn't back down and is maintaining Beanshell
> >> under Apache Extras[1], releasing also new releases - and
> >> it is ASLv2.0 licensed :)
> >>
> >> I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with
> >> new Beanshell releases without any blocking issue :)
> >>
> >> I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best!
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but
> >> Taverna in Italian stands for typical old-fashioned
> >> typical restaurant in Rome! :)
> >>
> >> [1]
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
> >>
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> >> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk
> >> <ma...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
> >>
> >> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the
> >> proposed Beanshell
> >> incubator.
> >> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project
> >> for a workflow
> >> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we
> >> understood it's
> >> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the
> >> requirement to
> >> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit
> >> of a challenge
> >> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an
> >> easy "Install
> >> Taverna Extras" button.
> >>
> >>
> >> I went through again the archives at
> >>
> >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3CCAJO+UbuNm7aHmov_4tVt6j8nOJMCmMPddH1xONfW5b00tY6i2w@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >>
> >> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really
> >> get accepted -
> >> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons
> >> anyway?
> >>
> >> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so
> >> apparently nothing happened :(
> >>
> >> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we
> >> able to kickstart
> >> this back again?
> >>
> >>
> >> The source at
> >> http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
> >> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
> >>
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
> >> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it
> >> into JAR-form.
> >>
> >>
> >> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
> >> (ASF)" and so
> >> should be importable even in source-code form -
> >> although that might be
> >> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache
> >> Taverna -
> >> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
> >>
> >> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which
> >> seems to be more
> >> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
> >>
> >>
> >> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support
> >> (using 2.0b1) -
> >> but they only includes it if the build has
> >> "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
> >>
> >> They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
> >>
> >> <
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/%21svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we
> >> use) is
> >> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public
> >> License" - which
> >> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
> >>
> >> http://beanshell.org/license.html
> >>
> >> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >>
> >>
> >> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't
> >> need to move
> >> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all.
> (yay!)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
> >> <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk
> >> <ma...@manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
> >> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the
> >> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also
> >> lead to "Need to
> >> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C"
> >> problem when you are
> >> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's
> >> the danger of the
> >> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know
> >> that before doing
> >> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with
> >> experience of the 2.x
> >> >> releases might want to have a say on this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think you've about covered everything. One point
> >> of interest is that
> >> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate
> >> repository model for a
> >> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well.
> >> What I'd do for the
> >> > cases where we had a feature of the server that
> >> depended on a specific
> >> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some
> >> command line option was
> >> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that
> >> specific thing, so that
> >> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that
> >> feature hit an
> >> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and
> >> could do the merge then.
> >> >
> >> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a
> >> state where it would be
> >> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time.
> >> (Doing a release
> >> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for
> >> various things and setting
> >> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was
> >> possible because
> >> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine,
> >> made most development
> >> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which
> >> Stian disapproved of
> >> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need
> >> of a fix and the
> >> > time to the next engine release was huge.)
> >> >
> >> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff
> >> being LGPL causing
> >> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is
> >> extremely disruptive
> >> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance
> >> of having an
> >> > existing workflow that will function with the new
> >> system to about 0%;
> >> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the
> >> wild use Beanshells.
> >> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to
> >> something else is
> >> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a
> >> nicely-licensed library for
> >> > transforming Beanshell code into some other
> >> language. :-D)
> >> >
> >> > Donal.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> >> School of Computer Science
> >> The University of Manchester
> >> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
> >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
Thank you both. :)
I have taken the liberty of deploying the compiled bsh-2.0b5.jar
(built from your latest src release) under
https://bintray.com/beanshell/Beanshell/bsh/ Maven repository
(together with -sources and -javadoc - for that Eclipse/Maven
goodness) and added the svn tag 2.0b5.
It's still built with ant - moving the build to Maven would require a
bit more effort -- see
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=12
It should appear in Maven Central after bintray accepts the new entry.
I used <groupId>org.apache-extras.beanshell</groupId> as that seems
already to be in use:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache-extras/
Let me know your bintray usernames and I can add who else needs to be
in for beanshell - there is no mailing list, is there?
I've added https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/wiki/Download
Apache Taverna folks - I've modified taverna-beanshell-activity to use
this 2.0b5 JAR instead - no need to worry more about the Sun Public
License. :)
https://github.com/taverna-incubator/taverna-engine-common-activities/blob/master/taverna-beanshell-activity/pom.xml#L69
The need for <repository> here should disappear in a day or two. Sadly
this bsh.jar is not yet an OSGi bundle, so I had to add an
Embed-Dependency, but that should not affect anything, at least not
now that it is bsh under Apache License.
On 9 January 2015 at 01:51, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
> (Oops .. I forgot to use the Apache smtp relay so the previous message was
> probably discarded as spam)
>
> Hello guys;
>
> The LGPL/SPL licensing text is just left over from the old licensing: I will
> take care of
> that. About the usage in Apache OpenOffice, I have just been lazy. It is not
> urgent
> since SPL is category B but the Apache OpenOffice port in FreeBSD already
> uses
> the new ALv2 code.
>
> AFAICT, the code is license clean. Do note that all the source files carry
> an Apache
> License 2 header and the code was already submitted to the Apache Software
> Foundation under a SGA so you can just take the code and use it without
> delay.
> The code is straightforward to build with Ant.
>
> I added the requested addresses as new committers in apache-extras. About
> the general state of the code: note that we don't pass all the tests. I
> would've
> liked to run coverity scan over the code but I never found time so I
> leave it as a suggestion for future development.
>
> Welcome and enjoy!
>
> Pedro.
>
> On 08/01/2015 01:25 p.m., Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>>
>> That makes sense, thanks for that!
>>
>> So it is just a glip with the spurious LGPL license file, you say. Phuh!
>>
>> You can perhaps add Google Code accounts stian@mygrid.org.uk
>> <ma...@mygrid.org.uk> and alan@mygrid.org.uk
>> <ma...@mygrid.org.uk> as we have both been dealing with the beanshell
>> scripting.
>>
>> A groupId might need to be sorted for Maven, separate from org.beanshell I
>> guess.
>>
>> Or would we then be able to final to import the code into Apache Commons
>> as initially planned and encouraged?
>>
>> On 8 Jan 2015 18:15, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetripodi@apache.org
>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stian!
>> I added Pedro in CC who's the guy who helped on migrating the
>> codebase :)
>>
>> So, IIRC, BS original author donated the codebase and signed a CLA
>> in order to trasfer the rights to the ASF, if it hasn't released
>> yet it is really just a matter of checking license (header,
>> NOTICE, ...) and make the first release.
>>
>> If someone from Taverna is interested on taking part to the
>> project, just let us know so we can add you in the committers
>> list, so we can work towards a first release all together. In that
>> way you won't need to include Beanshell as Taverna extra... does
>> it make sense?
>>
>> All the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk
>> <ma...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself,
>> real life often comes in the way of good intentions..
>>
>> I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what
>> we need. OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason.
>>
>> But we have two small issues;
>>
>> A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to
>> publish it as org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have
>> to prepare this JAR ouside Apache?
>>
>> B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed --
>>
>> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
>>
>> On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi"
>> <simonetripodi@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian!
>> thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very
>> appreciated :)
>>
>> Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very
>> bad timing, we were not able to coordinate to each other
>> in order to promptly follow-up the discussion and then
>> some other things happened in the private lives (I got a
>> new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)...
>>
>> BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache
>> OpenOffice didn't back down and is maintaining Beanshell
>> under Apache Extras[1], releasing also new releases - and
>> it is ASLv2.0 licensed :)
>>
>> I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with
>> new Beanshell releases without any blocking issue :)
>>
>> I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but
>> Taverna in Italian stands for typical old-fashioned
>> typical restaurant in Rome! :)
>>
>> [1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk
>> <ma...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the
>> proposed Beanshell
>> incubator.
>> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project
>> for a workflow
>> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we
>> understood it's
>> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the
>> requirement to
>> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
>>
>>
>>
>> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit
>> of a challenge
>> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an
>> easy "Install
>> Taverna Extras" button.
>>
>>
>> I went through again the archives at
>>
>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
>>
>>
>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3CCAJO+UbuNm7aHmov_4tVt6j8nOJMCmMPddH1xONfW5b00tY6i2w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really
>> get accepted -
>> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons
>> anyway?
>>
>> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so
>> apparently nothing happened :(
>>
>> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we
>> able to kickstart
>> this back again?
>>
>>
>> The source at
>> http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
>> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
>> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
>> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it
>> into JAR-form.
>>
>>
>> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
>> (ASF)" and so
>> should be importable even in source-code form -
>> although that might be
>> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache
>> Taverna -
>> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
>>
>> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which
>> seems to be more
>> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
>>
>>
>> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support
>> (using 2.0b1) -
>> but they only includes it if the build has
>> "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
>>
>> They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
>>
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
>>
>> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/%21svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz>
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we
>> use) is
>> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public
>> License" - which
>> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
>>
>> http://beanshell.org/license.html
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>
>>
>> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't
>> need to move
>> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
>> <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk
>> <ma...@manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the
>> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also
>> lead to "Need to
>> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C"
>> problem when you are
>> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's
>> the danger of the
>> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know
>> that before doing
>> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with
>> experience of the 2.x
>> >> releases might want to have a say on this.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think you've about covered everything. One point
>> of interest is that
>> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate
>> repository model for a
>> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well.
>> What I'd do for the
>> > cases where we had a feature of the server that
>> depended on a specific
>> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some
>> command line option was
>> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that
>> specific thing, so that
>> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that
>> feature hit an
>> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and
>> could do the merge then.
>> >
>> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a
>> state where it would be
>> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time.
>> (Doing a release
>> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for
>> various things and setting
>> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was
>> possible because
>> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine,
>> made most development
>> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which
>> Stian disapproved of
>> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need
>> of a fix and the
>> > time to the next engine release was huge.)
>> >
>> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff
>> being LGPL causing
>> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is
>> extremely disruptive
>> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance
>> of having an
>> > existing workflow that will function with the new
>> system to about 0%;
>> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the
>> wild use Beanshells.
>> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to
>> something else is
>> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a
>> nicely-licensed library for
>> > transforming Beanshell code into some other
>> language. :-D)
>> >
>> > Donal.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
(Oops .. I forgot to use the Apache smtp relay so the previous message
was probably discarded as spam)
Hello guys;
The LGPL/SPL licensing text is just left over from the old licensing: I
will take care of
that. About the usage in Apache OpenOffice, I have just been lazy. It is
not urgent
since SPL is category B but the Apache OpenOffice port in FreeBSD
already uses
the new ALv2 code.
AFAICT, the code is license clean. Do note that all the source files
carry an Apache
License 2 header and the code was already submitted to the Apache Software
Foundation under a SGA so you can just take the code and use it without
delay.
The code is straightforward to build with Ant.
I added the requested addresses as new committers in apache-extras. About
the general state of the code: note that we don't pass all the tests. I
would've
liked to run coverity scan over the code but I never found time so I
leave it as a suggestion for future development.
Welcome and enjoy!
Pedro.
On 08/01/2015 01:25 p.m., Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> That makes sense, thanks for that!
>
> So it is just a glip with the spurious LGPL license file, you say. Phuh!
>
> You can perhaps add Google Code accounts stian@mygrid.org.uk
> <ma...@mygrid.org.uk> and alan@mygrid.org.uk
> <ma...@mygrid.org.uk> as we have both been dealing with the
> beanshell scripting.
>
> A groupId might need to be sorted for Maven, separate from
> org.beanshell I guess.
>
> Or would we then be able to final to import the code into Apache
> Commons as initially planned and encouraged?
>
> On 8 Jan 2015 18:15, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetripodi@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Stian!
> I added Pedro in CC who's the guy who helped on migrating the
> codebase :)
>
> So, IIRC, BS original author donated the codebase and signed a CLA
> in order to trasfer the rights to the ASF, if it hasn't released
> yet it is really just a matter of checking license (header,
> NOTICE, ...) and make the first release.
>
> If someone from Taverna is interested on taking part to the
> project, just let us know so we can add you in the committers
> list, so we can work towards a first release all together. In that
> way you won't need to include Beanshell as Taverna extra... does
> it make sense?
>
> All the best!
> -Simo
>
>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk
> <ma...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself,
> real life often comes in the way of good intentions..
>
> I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what
> we need. OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason.
>
> But we have two small issues;
>
> A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to
> publish it as org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have
> to prepare this JAR ouside Apache?
>
> B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed --
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
>
> On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi"
> <simonetripodi@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian!
> thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very
> appreciated :)
>
> Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very
> bad timing, we were not able to coordinate to each other
> in order to promptly follow-up the discussion and then
> some other things happened in the private lives (I got a
> new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)...
>
> BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache
> OpenOffice didn't back down and is maintaining Beanshell
> under Apache Extras[1], releasing also new releases - and
> it is ASLv2.0 licensed :)
>
> I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with
> new Beanshell releases without any blocking issue :)
>
> I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best!
> -Simo
>
> PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but
> Taverna in Italian stands for typical old-fashioned
> typical restaurant in Rome! :)
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk
> <ma...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the
> proposed Beanshell
> incubator.
> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project
> for a workflow
> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we
> understood it's
> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the
> requirement to
> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
>
>
>
> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit
> of a challenge
> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an
> easy "Install
> Taverna Extras" button.
>
>
> I went through again the archives at
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3CCAJO+UbuNm7aHmov_4tVt6j8nOJMCmMPddH1xONfW5b00tY6i2w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really
> get accepted -
> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons
> anyway?
>
> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so
> apparently nothing happened :(
>
> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we
> able to kickstart
> this back again?
>
>
> The source at
> http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it
> into JAR-form.
>
>
> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
> (ASF)" and so
> should be importable even in source-code form -
> although that might be
> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache
> Taverna -
> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
>
> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which
> seems to be more
> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
>
>
> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support
> (using 2.0b1) -
> but they only includes it if the build has
> "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
>
> They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
> <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/%21svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz>
>
>
>
> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we
> use) is
> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public
> License" - which
> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
>
> http://beanshell.org/license.html
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>
> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't
> need to move
> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
>
>
>
>
> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
> <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk
> <ma...@manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >>
> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the
> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also
> lead to "Need to
> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C"
> problem when you are
> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's
> the danger of the
> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know
> that before doing
> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with
> experience of the 2.x
> >> releases might want to have a say on this.
> >
> >
> > I think you've about covered everything. One point
> of interest is that
> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate
> repository model for a
> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well.
> What I'd do for the
> > cases where we had a feature of the server that
> depended on a specific
> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some
> command line option was
> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that
> specific thing, so that
> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that
> feature hit an
> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and
> could do the merge then.
> >
> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a
> state where it would be
> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time.
> (Doing a release
> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for
> various things and setting
> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was
> possible because
> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine,
> made most development
> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which
> Stian disapproved of
> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need
> of a fix and the
> > time to the next engine release was huge.)
> >
> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff
> being LGPL causing
> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is
> extremely disruptive
> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance
> of having an
> > existing workflow that will function with the new
> system to about 0%;
> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the
> wild use Beanshells.
> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to
> something else is
> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a
> nicely-licensed library for
> > transforming Beanshell code into some other
> language. :-D)
> >
> > Donal.
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>
>
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Stian!
I added Pedro in CC who's the guy who helped on migrating the codebase :)
So, IIRC, BS original author donated the codebase and signed a CLA in order
to trasfer the rights to the ASF, if it hasn't released yet it is really
just a matter of checking license (header, NOTICE, ...) and make the first
release.
If someone from Taverna is interested on taking part to the project, just
let us know so we can add you in the committers list, so we can work
towards a first release all together. In that way you won't need to include
Beanshell as Taverna extra... does it make sense?
All the best!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself, real life
> often comes in the way of good intentions..
>
> I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what we need.
> OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason.
>
> But we have two small issues;
>
> A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to publish it as
> org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have to prepare this JAR ouside
> Apache?
>
> B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed --
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
> On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi" <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian!
>> thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very appreciated :)
>>
>> Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very bad timing, we
>> were not able to coordinate to each other in order to promptly follow-up
>> the discussion and then some other things happened in the private lives (I
>> got a new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)...
>>
>> BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache OpenOffice didn't
>> back down and is maintaining Beanshell under Apache Extras[1], releasing
>> also new releases - and it is ASLv2.0 licensed :)
>>
>> I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with new Beanshell
>> releases without any blocking issue :)
>>
>> I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but Taverna in Italian
>> stands for typical old-fashioned typical restaurant in Rome! :)
>>
>> [1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
>> soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the proposed Beanshell
>>> incubator.
>>> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project for a workflow
>>> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we understood it's
>>> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the requirement to
>>> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit of a challenge
>>> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an easy "Install
>>> Taverna Extras" button.
>>>
>>>
>>> I went through again the archives at
>>>
>>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
>>>
>>>
>>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3CCAJO+UbuNm7aHmov_4tVt6j8nOJMCmMPddH1xONfW5b00tY6i2w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really get accepted -
>>> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons anyway?
>>>
>>> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so apparently nothing
>>> happened :(
>>>
>>> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we able to kickstart
>>> this back again?
>>>
>>>
>>> The source at http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
>>> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
>>> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
>>> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it into JAR-form.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so
>>> should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be
>>> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna -
>>> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
>>>
>>> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more
>>> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
>>>
>>>
>>> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support (using 2.0b1) -
>>> but they only includes it if the build has "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
>>>
>>> They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is
>>> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which
>>> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
>>>
>>> http://beanshell.org/license.html
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>>
>>>
>>> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move
>>> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
>>> <do...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the
>>> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also lead to "Need to
>>> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C" problem when you are
>>> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's the danger of the
>>> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know that before doing
>>> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with experience of the 2.x
>>> >> releases might want to have a say on this.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I think you've about covered everything. One point of interest is that
>>> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate repository model for a
>>> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well. What I'd do for the
>>> > cases where we had a feature of the server that depended on a specific
>>> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some command line option was
>>> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that specific thing, so that
>>> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that feature hit an
>>> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and could do the merge
>>> then.
>>> >
>>> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a state where it would be
>>> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time. (Doing a release
>>> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for various things and
>>> setting
>>> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was possible because
>>> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine, made most
>>> development
>>> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which Stian disapproved of
>>> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need of a fix and the
>>> > time to the next engine release was huge.)
>>> >
>>> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff being LGPL causing
>>> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is extremely
>>> disruptive
>>> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance of having an
>>> > existing workflow that will function with the new system to about 0%;
>>> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the wild use Beanshells.
>>> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to something else is
>>> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a nicely-licensed library for
>>> > transforming Beanshell code into some other language. :-D)
>>> >
>>> > Donal.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>>> School of Computer Science
>>> The University of Manchester
>>> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
>>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>>
>>
>>
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <so...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>.
Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself, real life
often comes in the way of good intentions..
I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what we need.
OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason.
But we have two small issues;
A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to publish it as
org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have to prepare this JAR ouside
Apache?
B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed --
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi" <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian!
> thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very appreciated :)
>
> Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very bad timing, we
> were not able to coordinate to each other in order to promptly follow-up
> the discussion and then some other things happened in the private lives (I
> got a new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)...
>
> BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache OpenOffice didn't back
> down and is maintaining Beanshell under Apache Extras[1], releasing also
> new releases - and it is ASLv2.0 licensed :)
>
> I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with new Beanshell
> releases without any blocking issue :)
>
> I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best!
> -Simo
>
> PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but Taverna in Italian
> stands for typical old-fashioned typical restaurant in Rome! :)
>
> [1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
> soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the proposed Beanshell
>> incubator.
>> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project for a workflow
>> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we understood it's
>> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the requirement to
>> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
>>
>>
>>
>> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit of a challenge
>> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an easy "Install
>> Taverna Extras" button.
>>
>>
>> I went through again the archives at
>>
>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
>>
>>
>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3CCAJO+UbuNm7aHmov_4tVt6j8nOJMCmMPddH1xONfW5b00tY6i2w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really get accepted -
>> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons anyway?
>>
>> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so apparently nothing
>> happened :(
>>
>> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we able to kickstart
>> this back again?
>>
>>
>> The source at http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
>> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
>> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
>> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it into JAR-form.
>>
>>
>> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so
>> should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be
>> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna -
>> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
>>
>> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more
>> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
>>
>>
>> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support (using 2.0b1) -
>> but they only includes it if the build has "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
>>
>> They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
>>
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is
>> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which
>> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
>>
>> http://beanshell.org/license.html
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>
>>
>> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move
>> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
>> <do...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the
>> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also lead to "Need to
>> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C" problem when you are
>> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's the danger of the
>> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know that before doing
>> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with experience of the 2.x
>> >> releases might want to have a say on this.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think you've about covered everything. One point of interest is that
>> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate repository model for a
>> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well. What I'd do for the
>> > cases where we had a feature of the server that depended on a specific
>> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some command line option was
>> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that specific thing, so that
>> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that feature hit an
>> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and could do the merge
>> then.
>> >
>> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a state where it would be
>> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time. (Doing a release
>> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for various things and setting
>> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was possible because
>> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine, made most development
>> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which Stian disapproved of
>> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need of a fix and the
>> > time to the next engine release was huge.)
>> >
>> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff being LGPL causing
>> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is extremely disruptive
>> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance of having an
>> > existing workflow that will function with the new system to about 0%;
>> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the wild use Beanshells.
>> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to something else is
>> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a nicely-licensed library for
>> > transforming Beanshell code into some other language. :-D)
>> >
>> > Donal.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
>> School of Computer Science
>> The University of Manchester
>> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>
>
Re: Beanshell under Apache?
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian!
thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very appreciated :)
Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very bad timing, we
were not able to coordinate to each other in order to promptly follow-up
the discussion and then some other things happened in the private lives (I
got a new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)...
BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache OpenOffice didn't back
down and is maintaining Beanshell under Apache Extras[1], releasing also
new releases - and it is ASLv2.0 licensed :)
I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with new Beanshell
releases without any blocking issue :)
I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best!
-Simo
PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but Taverna in Italian
stands for typical old-fashioned typical restaurant in Rome! :)
[1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the proposed Beanshell
> incubator.
> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project for a workflow
> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we understood it's
> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the requirement to
> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
>
>
>
> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit of a challenge
> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an easy "Install
> Taverna Extras" button.
>
>
> I went through again the archives at
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
>
>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3CCAJO+UbuNm7aHmov_4tVt6j8nOJMCmMPddH1xONfW5b00tY6i2w@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really get accepted -
> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons anyway?
>
> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so apparently nothing
> happened :(
>
> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we able to kickstart
> this back again?
>
>
> The source at http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it into JAR-form.
>
>
> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so
> should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be
> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna -
> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
>
> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more
> active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
>
>
> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support (using 2.0b1) -
> but they only includes it if the build has "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
>
> They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
>
>
>
> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is
> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which
> could somewhat be OK under Apache:
>
> http://beanshell.org/license.html
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>
> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move
> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
>
>
>
>
> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
> <do...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >>
> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the
> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also lead to "Need to
> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C" problem when you are
> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's the danger of the
> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know that before doing
> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with experience of the 2.x
> >> releases might want to have a say on this.
> >
> >
> > I think you've about covered everything. One point of interest is that
> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate repository model for a
> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well. What I'd do for the
> > cases where we had a feature of the server that depended on a specific
> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some command line option was
> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that specific thing, so that
> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that feature hit an
> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and could do the merge
> then.
> >
> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a state where it would be
> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time. (Doing a release
> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for various things and setting
> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was possible because
> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine, made most development
> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which Stian disapproved of
> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need of a fix and the
> > time to the next engine release was huge.)
> >
> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff being LGPL causing
> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is extremely disruptive
> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance of having an
> > existing workflow that will function with the new system to about 0%;
> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the wild use Beanshells.
> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to something else is
> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a nicely-licensed library for
> > transforming Beanshell code into some other language. :-D)
> >
> > Donal.
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>