> Usually the major sticking point for our use of LGPL is if we have to
> import code (i.e. import com.* statements). Since neither of the
> findbugs plugins do this, I'd wager that it being lgpl isn't an issue.
> If it is, then we're going to have to take yet another look at plugins -
> chec
Ben Walding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/09/2003 07:31:00 AM:
> I missed discussion of the previous version unfortunately. And it isn't
> listed on the main page at the maven-plugins.sf.net site - only in CVS.
>
>
> Usually the major sticking point for our use of LGPL is if we have to
> i
I missed discussion of the previous version unfortunately. And it isn't
listed on the main page at the maven-plugins.sf.net site - only in CVS.
Usually the major sticking point for our use of LGPL is if we have to
import code (i.e. import com.* statements). Since neither of the
findbugs plugi
Ben,
I suggested a while back a findbugs plugin I had written, and was told that
because of the lgpl licensing issues, it needed to go elsewhere. So it is
currently living at maven-plugins.sf.net. I have talked to the developers,
and they are evaluating switching to an ASF friendly license that
