On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 7:44 AM Mark Waite <[email protected]> wrote:
> The changes made to wrap the library into the plugin are usually not very > large Well. In https://github.com/jenkinsci/apache-httpcomponents-client-4-api-plugin/blob/d43026ee871292547b224f11d6a2016303720165/src/main/java/io/jenkins/plugins/httpclient/RobustHTTPClient.java#L2-L4 for example the code does not consist of “changes” to the wrapped library, it is fresh Jenkins-specific development; and while not large it is certainly not trivial (well above the threshold considered significant for copyright). I think it is appropriate for the *plugin* to remain under the MIT license like most of the rest of Jenkins code. Obviously the JAR it bundles is under a different license, but so what? The license refers to the source files in the repository. As to plugins which bundle a third-party library and have absolutely nothing in `src/` other than `src/main/resources/index.jelly`, I guess it is less confusing to just mark the plugin with the same license, though I am not sure it makes any practical difference since the only conceivably significant “source” would be in `pom.xml` and this is most often pure boilerplate plus predictable `<dependencies>`. (Or `cd.yaml`, which is almost always just a copy from template.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/CANfRfr0LfBgYE%2BzHNmMinLjEWN9mcOjiZP4kHUXV4VSQ_ca08g%40mail.gmail.com.
