On 20/01/2008, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henri, > > How do you know that the reports are GPL? I knew Cobertura is written under > GPL, but how does that extend to the report generation? >
The problem is with the Javascript files that are used to display the results. > Paul > > On Jan 19, 2008 1:51 PM, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Just wanting to share concern about a couple of things: > > > > 1) Using Cobertura. It's reports are GPL. > > 2) Including sites in downloads. > > > > If we have a component with Cobertura turned on, and with the site > > included in the distribution, then things are very unhappy. > > > > Findbugs doesn't seem to be the same issue - it's LGPL, but the > > reports don't appear to contain any LGPL JavaScript. > > > > Currently we have Cobertura in: > > > > commons-sandbox-parent/pom.xml > > dbcp/pom.xml > > io/pom.xml > > jci/pom.xml > > jexl/pom.xml > > lang/pom.xml > > math/pom.xml > > betwixt/project.xml > > codec/project.xml > > collections/project.xml > > collections_jdk5_branch/project.xml > > configuration/project.xml > > dbcp/project.xml > > io/project.xml > > lang/project.xml > > math/project.xml > > primitives/project.xml > > validator/project.xml > > > > Looking at upcoming releases, IO does not distribute the site and > > FileUpload does but doesn't have any suspicious looking reports. > > > > Do we want to play it safe and either not include Cobertura (and other > > reports with similar problems), or not have downloaded sites? Or keep > > it as it is and make this something we have to look at on every RC > > check? > > > > Hen > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
