You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@dubbo.apache.org by Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com> on 2019/01/10 07:42:09 UTC
Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
hi all
The feature: Dubbo: Upgrade junt to junit5 [1] [2]
is ready now.
I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test cases, I
copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as follow :
org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-dubbo/pull/3149
[2]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/56b9c627b4736b605ea61bdda41b1dba072e21dc85f8181f9374e1ca@%3Cdev.dubbo.apache.org%3E
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Ian Luo <ia...@gmail.com>.
Great job. I reviewed and merged it into the master branch.
Thanks,
-Ian.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:36 AM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now the junit5 source code is removed， thank you all.
>
> Ian Luo <ia...@gmail.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午5:19写道：
>
> > I think it is fine if we don't include the source code from softwares
> > fallen into "Category B”. In this particular case, let's simply use junit
> > 5.4.0.M1 directly to avoid it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Ian.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:44 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Sorry I mean “convenience binary” i.e. a binary made fro a source
> > > package for the convenience of users who don’t want to compile the
> source
> > > code.
> > >
> > > Does it mean that if I use the jar generated from the source code of
> > EPL2，
> > > also need to be placed in the LICENSE file?
> > >
> > > Huxing Zhang <hu...@apache.org> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午4:34写道：
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0?
> > > > Maybe we can find a way to work it around.
> > > > If not, I think option 1 and option 2 looks both ok to me.
> > > > If I have to choose, I choose option 1 because this is a test
> > > > dependency, it should not have too much impact to the code quality.
> > > > If choose option 2 and have to wait 2 month, maybe there will be lots
> > > > of refactoring work like resolving conflicts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If so , I think there are two methds:
> > > > > 1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone
> version,
> > > not
> > > > a
> > > > > release version
> > > > > 2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe
> > > need
> > > > > two monthes）
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1
> > > > >
> > > > > Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道：
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test
> > > > cases, I
> > > > > > > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as
> > > > follow :
> > > > > > > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
> > > > > > > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully
> > compatible
> > > > with
> > > > > > ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way
> of
> > > > doing
> > > > > > this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > LICENSE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Justin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best Regards！
> > > > Huxing
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>.
Now the junit5 source code is removed， thank you all.
Ian Luo <ia...@gmail.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午5:19写道：
> I think it is fine if we don't include the source code from softwares
> fallen into "Category B”. In this particular case, let's simply use junit
> 5.4.0.M1 directly to avoid it.
>
> Regards,
> -Ian.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:44 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry I mean “convenience binary” i.e. a binary made fro a source
> > package for the convenience of users who don’t want to compile the source
> > code.
> >
> > Does it mean that if I use the jar generated from the source code of
> EPL2，
> > also need to be placed in the LICENSE file?
> >
> > Huxing Zhang <hu...@apache.org> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午4:34写道：
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0?
> > > Maybe we can find a way to work it around.
> > > If not, I think option 1 and option 2 looks both ok to me.
> > > If I have to choose, I choose option 1 because this is a test
> > > dependency, it should not have too much impact to the code quality.
> > > If choose option 2 and have to wait 2 month, maybe there will be lots
> > > of refactoring work like resolving conflicts.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If so , I think there are two methds:
> > > > 1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone version,
> > not
> > > a
> > > > release version
> > > > 2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe
> > need
> > > > two monthes）
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1
> > > >
> > > > Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道：
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test
> > > cases, I
> > > > > > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as
> > > follow :
> > > > > > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
> > > > > > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully
> compatible
> > > with
> > > > > ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of
> > > doing
> > > > > this?
> > > > >
> > > > > if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it
> in
> > > the
> > > > > LICENSE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards！
> > > Huxing
> > >
> >
>
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Ian Luo <ia...@gmail.com>.
I think it is fine if we don't include the source code from softwares
fallen into "Category B”. In this particular case, let's simply use junit
5.4.0.M1 directly to avoid it.
Regards,
-Ian.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:44 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sorry I mean “convenience binary” i.e. a binary made fro a source
> package for the convenience of users who don’t want to compile the source
> code.
>
> Does it mean that if I use the jar generated from the source code of EPL2，
> also need to be placed in the LICENSE file?
>
> Huxing Zhang <hu...@apache.org> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午4:34写道：
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0?
> > Maybe we can find a way to work it around.
> > If not, I think option 1 and option 2 looks both ok to me.
> > If I have to choose, I choose option 1 because this is a test
> > dependency, it should not have too much impact to the code quality.
> > If choose option 2 and have to wait 2 month, maybe there will be lots
> > of refactoring work like resolving conflicts.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > If so , I think there are two methds:
> > > 1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone version,
> not
> > a
> > > release version
> > > 2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe
> need
> > > two monthes）
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1
> > >
> > > Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道：
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test
> > cases, I
> > > > > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as
> > follow :
> > > > > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
> > > > >
> > > > > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
> > > > > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully compatible
> > with
> > > > ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of
> > doing
> > > > this?
> > > >
> > > > if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in
> > the
> > > > LICENSE.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards！
> > Huxing
> >
>
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>.
> Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0?
Some old test cases need two features: temporary folder read and
write，ordered test case
the Jupiter 5.3.2 does not contain these features, but 5.4.0.M1 does.
> If I have to choose, I choose option 1
Yes, option 1 won't cause PR to be delayed too long.
Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午4:43写道：
> > Sorry I mean “convenience binary” i.e. a binary made fro a source
> package for the convenience of users who don’t want to compile the source
> code.
>
> Does it mean that if I use the jar generated from the source code of EPL2，
> also need to be placed in the LICENSE file?
>
> Huxing Zhang <hu...@apache.org> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午4:34写道：
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0?
>> Maybe we can find a way to work it around.
>> If not, I think option 1 and option 2 looks both ok to me.
>> If I have to choose, I choose option 1 because this is a test
>> dependency, it should not have too much impact to the code quality.
>> If choose option 2 and have to wait 2 month, maybe there will be lots
>> of refactoring work like resolving conflicts.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > If so , I think there are two methds:
>> > 1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone version,
>> not a
>> > release version
>> > 2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe need
>> > two monthes）
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1
>> >
>> > Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道：
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test
>> cases, I
>> > > > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as
>> follow :
>> > > > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
>> > > >
>> > > > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
>> > > > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
>> > >
>> > > Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully compatible
>> with
>> > > ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of
>> doing
>> > > this?
>> > >
>> > > if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in
>> the
>> > > LICENSE.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Justin
>> > >
>> > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards！
>> Huxing
>>
>
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>.
> Sorry I mean “convenience binary” i.e. a binary made fro a source
package for the convenience of users who don’t want to compile the source
code.
Does it mean that if I use the jar generated from the source code of EPL2，
also need to be placed in the LICENSE file?
Huxing Zhang <hu...@apache.org> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午4:34写道：
> Hi,
>
> Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0?
> Maybe we can find a way to work it around.
> If not, I think option 1 and option 2 looks both ok to me.
> If I have to choose, I choose option 1 because this is a test
> dependency, it should not have too much impact to the code quality.
> If choose option 2 and have to wait 2 month, maybe there will be lots
> of refactoring work like resolving conflicts.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If so , I think there are two methds:
> > 1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone version, not
> a
> > release version
> > 2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe need
> > two monthes）
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1
> >
> > Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道：
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test
> cases, I
> > > > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as
> follow :
> > > > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
> > > >
> > > > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
> > > > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
> > >
> > > Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully compatible
> with
> > > ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of
> doing
> > > this?
> > >
> > > if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in
> the
> > > LICENSE.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards！
> Huxing
>
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Huxing Zhang <hu...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0?
Maybe we can find a way to work it around.
If not, I think option 1 and option 2 looks both ok to me.
If I have to choose, I choose option 1 because this is a test
dependency, it should not have too much impact to the code quality.
If choose option 2 and have to wait 2 month, maybe there will be lots
of refactoring work like resolving conflicts.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 PM Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If so , I think there are two methds:
> 1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone version, not a
> release version
> 2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe need
> two monthes）
>
> [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1
>
> Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道：
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test cases, I
> > > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as follow :
> > > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
> > >
> > >
> > org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
> > >
> > > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
> > > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
> >
> > Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully compatible with
> > ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of doing
> > this?
> >
> > if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in the
> > LICENSE.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
--
Best Regards！
Huxing
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Xin Wang <xi...@gmail.com>.
If so , I think there are two methds:
1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone version, not a
release version
2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe need
two monthes）
[1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1
Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道：
> Hi,
>
> > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test cases, I
> > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as follow :
> > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
> >
> >
> org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
> >
> > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
> > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
>
> Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully compatible with
> ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of doing
> this?
>
> if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in the
> LICENSE.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in the LICENSE.
Sorry I mean “convenience binary” i.e. a binary made fro a source package for the convenience of users who don’t want to compile the source code.
Justin
Re: Junit5 source file, do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test cases, I
> copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as follow :
> org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java
>
> org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor
>
> the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0
> Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file?
Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully compatible with ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of doing this?
if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in the LICENSE.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b