Hi Stian! I added Pedro in CC who's the guy who helped on migrating the codebase :)
So, IIRC, BS original author donated the codebase and signed a CLA in order to trasfer the rights to the ASF, if it hasn't released yet it is really just a matter of checking license (header, NOTICE, ...) and make the first release. If someone from Taverna is interested on taking part to the project, just let us know so we can add you in the committers list, so we can work towards a first release all together. In that way you won't need to include Beanshell as Taverna extra... does it make sense? All the best! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes < soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself, real life > often comes in the way of good intentions.. > > I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what we need. > OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason. > > But we have two small issues; > > A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to publish it as > org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have to prepare this JAR ouside > Apache? > > B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed -- > https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11 > On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian! >> thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very appreciated :) >> >> Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very bad timing, we >> were not able to coordinate to each other in order to promptly follow-up >> the discussion and then some other things happened in the private lives (I >> got a new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)... >> >> BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache OpenOffice didn't >> back down and is maintaining Beanshell under Apache Extras[1], releasing >> also new releases - and it is ASLv2.0 licensed :) >> >> I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with new Beanshell >> releases without any blocking issue :) >> >> I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best! >> -Simo >> >> PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but Taverna in Italian >> stands for typical old-fashioned typical restaurant in Rome! :) >> >> [1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/ >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes < >> soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> (CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the proposed Beanshell >>> incubator. >>> Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project for a workflow >>> system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we understood it's >>> official release to be under LGPL we are facing the requirement to >>> keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin) >>> >>> >>> >>> Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit of a challenge >>> - specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an easy "Install >>> Taverna Extras" button. >>> >>> >>> I went through again the archives at >>> >>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal >>> >>> >>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3ccajo+ubunm7ahmov_4tvt6j8nojmcmmpddh1xonfw5b00ty6...@mail.gmail.com%3E >>> >>> it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really get accepted - >>> but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons anyway? >>> >>> I am unable to find any further trace of it - so apparently nothing >>> happened :( >>> >>> Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we able to kickstart >>> this back again? >>> >>> >>> The source at http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/ >>> (2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license. >>> https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/ >>> Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it into JAR-form. >>> >>> >>> It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" and so >>> should be importable even in source-code form - although that might be >>> better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache Taverna - >>> https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/ >>> >>> https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which seems to be more >>> active (but remains LGPL :-( ). >>> >>> >>> Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support (using 2.0b1) - >>> but they only includes it if the build has "ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES". >>> >>> They even copied the source here under the svn branch: >>> >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we use) is >>> dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public License" - which >>> could somewhat be OK under Apache: >>> >>> http://beanshell.org/license.html >>> >>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b >>> >>> >>> So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't need to move >>> Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows >>> <donal.k.fell...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> > On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I can however see that there is a danger that the >>> >> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also lead to "Need to >>> >> release A so I can release B so I can release C" problem when you are >>> >> propagating changes downstream, and then there's the danger of the >>> >> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know that before doing >>> >> several releases). Other Taverna developers with experience of the 2.x >>> >> releases might want to have a say on this. >>> > >>> > >>> > I think you've about covered everything. One point of interest is that >>> > we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate repository model for a >>> > few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well. What I'd do for the >>> > cases where we had a feature of the server that depended on a specific >>> > change elsewhere (such as a change in how some command line option was >>> > processed) was to do a feature branch for that specific thing, so that >>> > we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that feature hit an >>> > identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and could do the merge >>> then. >>> > >>> > The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a state where it would be >>> > buildable, testable and near releasable at any time. (Doing a release >>> > was a matter of adjusting version numbers for various things and >>> setting >>> > a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was possible because >>> > the server was only loosely coupled to the engine, made most >>> development >>> > easy. (The odd times when releases happened which Stian disapproved of >>> > ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need of a fix and the >>> > time to the next engine release was huge.) >>> > >>> > I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff being LGPL causing >>> > problems is a particular problem, as removing it is extremely >>> disruptive >>> > to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance of having an >>> > existing workflow that will function with the new system to about 0%; >>> > virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the wild use Beanshells. >>> > The chance of getting all that wild code ported to something else is >>> > also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a nicely-licensed library for >>> > transforming Beanshell code into some other language. :-D) >>> > >>> > Donal. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >>> School of Computer Science >>> The University of Manchester >>> http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/ >>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >>> >> >>
