Hi
I'd like to do one small step towards the AspectJ WeavingHook
implementation. If it should be part of karaf-extra, what a package
naming should be used? Do you have any idea which license should be used
for this code?
Best regards
Krzysztof
On 11.01.2014 14:08, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> G
I'm with you on the idea of a Blueprint AOP (I would love to abandon spring for
blueprint in a future day).
Il giorno sabato 11 gennaio 2014, Krzysztof Sobkowiak ha scritto:
> I thought about a separate implementation of WeavingHook. But I could
> look at Aries weaving. Is it implemented in t
I thought about a separate implementation of WeavingHook. But I could
look at Aries weaving. Is it implemented in the Aries Proxy project? Are
there any samples of Aries weaving usage?
I think, the implementation should be universal, installable on any OSGi
4.3 runtime. If Arise weaving is a
Good point. Theoretical, I would say aries-extra if you are based on
Aries weaving. However, as Aries is a library, in order to use/test it
you have to use it in a container like Karaf. So as a ready to use
solution (with features), it could be in karaf-extra. Actually, it's
likely like the oth
By the way, which project would be the best final place for the solution
with AspectJ? Karaf (in this case karaf-extra) or Aries (aries-extra)?
Best regards
Krzysztof
On 10.01.2014 08:06, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
I use an example again - AspectJ is licensed under EPL 1.0 license.
Assume
Hi Jean-Baptiste
interesting point, that I’ve been also looking at in the past.
Issues I encountered in the past are:
(1) Where to place the *-extra project on github. ASF related projects are
mirrored under the Apache user [1]. To keep it consistent, we might need an
apache-extra user on gith
Hi Henryk,
you are right. My proposal is more a mirror on github: so the code
itself stays on googecode, but we have a mirror on github (as we have
for other Apache projects).
Regards
JB
On 01/10/2014 03:17 PM, Henryk Konsek wrote:
I meant the [camel,servicemix]-extra projects from googleco
> I meant the [camel,servicemix]-extra projects from googlecode. It would be
> nice to have git repositories for the code.
Keep in mind guys, that Google Code supports git repositories. We have
migrated Camel Extra to git [1] few months back.
BTW I think that usage of Google Code repository [2] i
Ah ok. You are right, I gonna propose and create it.
Regards
JB
On 01/10/2014 09:09 AM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
I meant the [camel,servicemix]-extra projects from googlecode. It would
be nice to have git repositories for the code.
Regards
Krzysztof
On 10.01.2014 09:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
I meant the [camel,servicemix]-extra projects from googlecode. It would
be nice to have git repositories for the code.
Regards
Krzysztof
On 10.01.2014 09:05, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
I didn't create the karaf-extra project yet as we didn't have the need.
I will create it when we need some
I didn't create the karaf-extra project yet as we didn't have the need.
I will create it when we need some extra/contrib.
When you said "any plans to migrate the projects", you mean Karaf projects ?
Regards
JB
On 01/10/2014 08:21 AM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
Ok thanks a lot, it clarified me
Ok thanks a lot, it clarified me my questions. The license content use
juridical language. I don't understand it always. I could find
camel-extra and servicemix-extra projects. But I can't find karaf-extra.
Where is this project? Have you any plans to migrate the projects in git
(or even host o
Hi Krzysztof,
I invite you to read the GPL, APL, etc license content.
My comments inline:
On 01/10/2014 07:36 AM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak wrote:
Hi
Thanks for answers. I need still some clarifications. I'll use some samples
On 10.01.2014 05:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi
It's a difference
Hi
Thanks for answers. I need still some clarifications. I'll use some samples
On 10.01.2014 05:44, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
Hi
It's a difference between inclusion, usage, and reference.
For instance, GPL license is a intrusive license. It means that any
software that use a code under GPL
Hi,
I fully agree John here.
The feature descriptor just points to maven coordinates. Therefore I think
we are license safe.
Regards, achim
sent from mobile device
Am 10.01.2014 01:30 schrieb "John D. Ament" :
> Right, but is there an actual dependency on something LGPL/GPL here?
> The file in
Hi
It's a difference between inclusion, usage, and reference.
For instance, GPL license is a intrusive license. It means that any
software that use a code under GPL has to be itself under the GPL
license. That's why you can't use GPL in a Apache project. It's the case
for usage, inclusion or
Right, but is there an actual dependency on something LGPL/GPL here?
The file in question is an instruction to a karaf instance on how to
install something (e.g. hibernate). Hibernate isn't actually
distributed, simply commands that tell the instance where to get
hibernate.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at
It applies to anything licensed under ASF Licenses.
Hibernate is probably a good example, the Apache Camel Hibernate components
are housed outside ASF, in a 3rd party repo.
Since that component is compiled against GPL code it isn't ASF compatible
anymore.
On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:14 PM, John D. Amen
Well, since there is no compile time dependency on hibernate, is there
actually a licensing issue?
The binary is referenced, but not compiled against in Apache code.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Krzysztof Sobkowiak
wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have some licensing questions.
>
> I have found following pag
Hi
I have some licensing questions.
I have found following page http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
which defines 3 categories of third party licenses. According to this
page LGPL v2.1 is category X, but further remark says, the
LGPL-v2.1-licensed work can be listed as system requirements
20 matches
Mail list logo
