On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Tim O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > > Yeah. How to integrate either commercial tools like Clover, or GPL tools > > like JDiff, is something that confuses me at the moment. We could have a > > separate project.xml/project.properties or a build.xml, but I'm not sure > > that would work easily. > > It is a touchy situation. If I have the commercial binary for Clover 1.2 > licensed to Codec, where do I put it?, and Who can I give it to? I think > putting the binaries on Icarus is a good solution, other committers can > grab the binaries and use them for site generation. I say you don't put it anywhere. Merely provide instructions on how the committer/contributor would obtain it [and if they can]. Thus my thoughts on it being a build-extension to the main one. > But, who is allowed to use this binary? We expect contributors to submit Case by case basis. > My point being, even though we have some very active, valuebale > contributors, I don't think we're allowed to distribute Clover binaries to > non-committers. Yep. Possibly you could have a sandbox for pending code and a clover that ran on that. But not nice. Or the person integrating the patch in would run clover. > I'll turn the clover report back on, but I think that we should favor free > when there is a choice. I'd rather not even hav to deal with the above When the open-source product can compete, yeah. > unit tests - but, last time I checked JCoverage didn't work very well and > was available under one of those annoying GPL/commercial schemes (like > MySQL). Quilt is reportedly close to a maven plugin. We'll see what > happens with that. That reportedly close built is at least a year old. I've not heard much on it since Maven started 18 months ago. > > > Now, here's some philosophy. Clover is a great tool, but, it isn't free > > > or open source. I worry that the ASF makes a mistake when it starts to > > > rely on proprietary utilities such as Clover and JIRA. I'm not sure if a > > > good discussion has been started on the subject. > > > > I believe in supporting commercial tools which provide open source > > projects with a good deal. If an open source variant with competable > > features [and a usable licence] exists, then it's the better choice. > > > > I think getting into commercial tools reduces the accessibility of the > project for non-committers. I like Clover, but I'd like it much better if > I knew that some college student interested in working on this project > could download a free version. At no point should a commercial, GPL or other non-compatible licensed software be on the critical path for any Apache project. I see no problem with Apache paying 50,000 dollars for some commercial application, if it is licensed under BSD and we are then able to distribute it for free to our users. Unlikely to happen, but not a problem :) > A few months ago there was an email war on community@ about licensing > issues, and, if I remember correctly, there is nothing prohibiting us from > using GPL, LGPL "tools". We cannot distribute them basically. So it's the same as a commercial tool. Only use it as an aid/extension, not as a critical path. ie) No real need for people to run clover or jdiff themselves, what they really care about is the output of clover/jdiff, so we just need to be able to produce that regularly. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
