buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Assaf Arkin" <ar...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Buildr dependencies
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:06:08 GMT
On 2/10/08, Caleb Powell <caleb.powell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm going to re-license the Antwrap library using the Apache Software
> License so that it is compatible with Buildr. I feel the ASF license
> is the most appropriate considering that Antwrap is a binding for
> another Apache project.
>
> I was also planning on making some minor packaging changes to Antwrap
> and improving the tests. But it may be that doing so will cause some
> delays for you guys if you are planning a release. Would it be easier
> for the Buildr project if I release a new version of Antwrap with the
> ASF license (and no code changes), and then release a subsequent
> version with code changes?


I asked about this, but my sense so far is that it won't be a problem.
 Since we're in incubation right now, the requirements are more relaxed, so
we can do with the current release and just wait for the next version of
Antwrap.


Assaf

Cheers!
>
> Caleb
>
> On Feb 6, 2008 6:18 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I've just committed our NOTICE files and the licenses of the libraries
> we
> > depend on. For everybody to be on the same page, the policy regarding
> > third-party dependencies at the ASF is roughly (at least for now):
> >
> >    - ASL, MIT, BSD are okay.
> >    - CDDL, CPL, EPL, MPL are sort of okay but to be used with care
> >    (additional warnings). Avoiding them altogether would be nice,
> especially
> >    given that we don't depend on any of these ATM. We're in a gray area
> here
> >    (the main difficult point being that you *always* distribute sources
> in
> >    Ruby).
> >    - GPL, LGPL, BCL, Sleepycat and a few others are definitely not okay.
> >
> > As you may have noticed the Ruby license is not in the list. I've asked
> some
> > feedback on it but I don't anticipate big problems there, the Ruby
> license
> > itself (obviously we wouldn't choose the GPL) is fairly liberal even if
> it
> > has a few quirks.
> >
> > So provided that the Ruby License is fine, all our dependencies are
> kosher
> > except Antwrap (LGPL). We'll see what we can do there.
> >
> > From now on please keep the following in mind:
> >
> >    1. If you plan to add a hard dependency (not an optional feature) on
> >    something and it's not licensed under ASL, MIT or BSD, please ask
> here
> >    first.
> >    2. For all other open source projects you're involved in, think twice
> >    before choosing a license and make the license choice and the
> copyright
> >    clear. Please. For the sanity of those who will use your stuff.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Matthieu
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Caleb
>
> "I do not know which makes a man more conservative—to know nothing but
> the present, or nothing but the past."
>   - John Maynard Keynes
>



-- 
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message