Apart from the option to move it, I think codehaus is the most logic place to provide this plugin. The other one would be at cobertura self. This is where users will look first. I agree that with spending some time in this plugin it should be possible to solve those licensing problems. And if Benson would like to help, that would be great. Also cobertura refers to us as the one and only cobertura-maven-plugin provider, so I think it's the best for both parties if the development of this plugin wouldn't be slowed down because of these issues. @Jochen the cobertura-dependency is kind of a complicated jar. One part (the classes under net.sourceforge.cobertura.ant ) is licensed under ASL 1.1, there rest under GNU GPL 2.0 [2]. If you compare this with the codehaus license guidelines[3] you'll see some friction. This is how we solved it with the cobertura-plugin: Classes under net.sourceforge.cobertura.ant can be used as usual, just import them and treat them as you're used to. All other classes are resolved by reflection. For instance: for the CheckTask a command line is constructed and executed. We don't call the main directly. This way we should be safe (that's at least what I understood of it). (And to be honest, current code already breaks this rule) It would be much more clear if the Cobertura had split the jar in two, each with its own license. @Brett So if we change the license to BSD, we can use every class as we'd like to do? So no more reflection required? And does this require a vote? -Robert
[1] http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/maven.html [2] http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html [3] http://codehaus.org/customs/licenses.html > Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 08:14:50 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] Cobertura: in codehaus or out > > As I understand it, the original author of the patch went below the > level of the ant tasks to the 'real' cobertura API. Robert opined that > this was a Codehaus licensing problem. Brett opined that it was not. I > opined that, if it was a problem, it made more sense to fork our of > Codehaus than to write extra code to avoid the use of the real API. > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/04/2011, at 6:53 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > > > >> I just got bad news from Robert Scholte. There is a longstanding > >> problem of license friction with this plugin where the cobertura > >> license and the codehaus license don't play well together. The > >> original MCOBERTURA-65 patch already trangressed a 'what can you call' > >> boundary here. > > > > Would you please explain what the problem is? The author himself is > > releasing the Ant tasks for Cobertura under ASL 1.1, so it's hard for > > me to understand what the problem could be? > > > > > > Jochen > > > > -- > > I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > >
