On 4/10/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand it, this one has been in a grey area for some time.
Firstly, to be clear, there's nothing legally wrong with what it's
doing - this is purely protecting users from getting code that is not
AL unsuspectingly.
Since the use of ch
On 4/10/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/9/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that with Java muck,
> that importing and referencing [L]GPL classes in non-[L]GPL code was
> not legit. Or is that just for GPL?
just GPL
A
Actually, that depends on who you ask. If you read the FSF site you'd
get the impression it is not. JBoss says it is. What is most important
is that according to what I've seen on Apache legal-discuss the project
can't have direct dependencies on LGPL'd software.
It would make a lot of sense
I took a look at archiva/trunk, and the only remaining snapshot
dependencies I see are from maven-app-configuration. That vote has
passed and is just waiting for the staged binaries to be copied over
to the synced repo.
Once that's done, I'd like to tag and release archiva/trunk. It
works, it a
On 3/30/07, Jesse McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
passed with 6 binding (jmcconnell, bporter, oching, evenisse, jdcasey,
and jerdfelt)
I'll copy these out and get the continuum alpha 1 release prepared for a vote
Jesse, any news on this? Looks like maven-app-configuration 1.0 would
also
The use of Maven with Checkstyle is prominently listed on their site.
Has anyone in the past discussed the license with them? (ie changing it
to Apache friendly?)
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:47 PM
To: Maven Developers List
On 4/9/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that with Java muck,
that importing and referencing [L]GPL classes in non-[L]GPL code was
not legit. Or is that just for GPL?
just GPL
-
On Apr 9, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
As I understand it, this one has been in a grey area for some time.
Firstly, to be clear, there's nothing legally wrong with what it's
doing - this is purely protecting users from getting code that is
not AL unsuspectingly.
Since the use of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Hi
Hello Mark,
>
> the freehep-nar-plugin does exactly what you describe.
>
> http://java.freehep.org/freehep-nar-plugin
Thanks for the hint. This sounds promising.
Anyways I am not creating system libraries, I just want to use them in my
project.
As I understand it, this one has been in a grey area for some time.
Firstly, to be clear, there's nothing legally wrong with what it's
doing - this is purely protecting users from getting code that is not
AL unsuspectingly.
Since the use of checkstyle is optional, and because we don't
'di
In a pom I agree, but from the CLI you can run checkstyle:check.
-Original Message-
From: Jason Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason
Dillon
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:36 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Checkstyle, maven-checkstyle-plugin and LGPL
On Apr 9, 20
This is not a complete list of auto-props... it complexly missies
keywords and mime-types.
I don't recommend that anyone use this file as-is for their
subversion/config.
--jason
On Apr 9, 2007, at 9:14 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Page Created : GMOxKB : How do I setup my SVN client for
On Apr 9, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
On 4/9/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I personally have no love for GPL/LGPL,
why such hate ? :)
I didn't say hate :-P
I just don't have a love for it... most because its not friggen
compatible with the ASL :-P
I wish it was
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
whole plugin will cause total havoc on existing builds. (As would
purging old versions of it)
It's the "optional" part that is important. Nothing from Apache
should
silently pull in LGPL dependencies.
Moving the plugin to Codehaus is probably
Yes, but currently relocations are ignored for plugins. I tried to do
that before and had no luck.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carlos
Sanchez
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 12:13 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Checkstyle, mave
if we release a new version under mojo and put a relocation for that
one in apache, won't that warn all users that just try to upgrade?
On 4/9/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In order for this to work, I think maven needs to support relocations of
plugins. This currently doesn't work
Whatever happened with this?
On 3/26/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 25 March 2007 13:30, Vincent Massol wrote:
> I've tried to write several different integration tests to test this
> but it's always working...
>
> There are a lot of issues with the Clover plugin but that's
In order for this to work, I think maven needs to support relocations of
plugins. This currently doesn't work.
Does this mean ALL versions of checkstyle, including those already
released must move? That's the part that will be most disruptive.
-Original Message-
From: Wendy Smoak [mailt
>What do you think about this?
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/9/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At the end of the link quoted below:
> a bridging api (which can reside within the same project - so can
be hosted at apache) >will be used to access these LGPL stuff to clearly
show its optional behaviour
This is probably the simplest thin
On 4/9/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At the end of the link quoted below:
> a bridging api (which can reside within the same project - so can
be hosted at apache) >will be used to access these LGPL stuff to clearly
show its optional behaviour
This is probably the simplest thin
Hi
I'm preparing to release a new version of maven-stylus-skin. I'd
therefor like your opinions on how we should handle versions for our skins.
The only real change in maven-stylus-skin is the addition of a couple of
missing images. The current version is 1.1-SNAPSHOT. I'd like to make it
a
On 9 Apr 07, at 8:47 AM 9 Apr 07, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Hi,
I am probably in a minority, but a patch like the one in
"http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=519557"; scares the
hell out of me. Not only is this a major, undocumented change to the
behaviour of the Doxia render
Here are the results of this vote:
+1 Binding: Dennis Lundberg, Brian Fox, Jason val Zyl, Emmanuel Venisse,
John Casey
+1 Non-binding: Maria Odea Ching, Andrew Williams
I will proceed with this release manually.
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to release maven-skins pom 3.
This is in
Hi,
I am probably in a minority, but a patch like the one in
"http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=519557"; scares the
hell out of me. Not only is this a major, undocumented change to the
behaviour of the Doxia renderer, it also breaks a number of apt and
xdoc pages that rendered fine be
No, not until yesterday. I didn't have time to do the release directly
after the vote had passed, but it's out now.
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Didn't we just do a JXR release?
-Original Message-
From: Joerg Hohwiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:07 PM
To: Maven D
It has been 11 month since the last release of the maven-release-plugin
(2.0-beta-4).
When will the next release of the plugin approximately be?
There are 10 open issues. For a lot of issues patches have been provided:
MRELEASE-128
MRELEASE-122
MRELEASE-116
MRELEASE-90
MRELEASE-91
MRELEASE-137
At the end of the link quoted below:
> a bridging api (which can reside within the same project - so can
be hosted at apache) >will be used to access these LGPL stuff to clearly
show its optional behaviour
This is probably the simplest thing to do. Make a bridging API that sits
at Mojo and th
On 4/9/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey, I was just looking around at Checkstyle and noticed that it is
licensed as LGPL. Is this legit? I was under the impression that
Apache soft ware could not directly use any LGPL or GPL licenses
software... which the maven-checkstyle-plugin
Thanks John for this.
Is there anything left to process the beta-1 release?
Thanks,
Stéphane
On 4/5/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah, I'm sure I deployed with the wrong version of maven. :(
I'll fix and redeploy.
-john
On 4/5/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I n
+1
Stéphane
On 4/1/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The staging repository is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/staging-repository/maven-ant-
tasks-2.0.6/
The uber jar that people will want to try is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/staging-repository/maven-ant-
Hey, I was just looking around at Checkstyle and noticed that it is
licensed as LGPL. Is this legit? I was under the impression that
Apache soft ware could not directly use any LGPL or GPL licenses
software... which the maven-checkstyle-plugin is clearly doing.
The README in the Checkstyl
32 matches
Mail list logo