Geoff, I totally agree with the statements you are making below. While I have no problem with blocks that are clearly marked as having redistribution licensing problems being part of Cocoon, the core components MUST not have this problem. Even moving flow to a block will not change it from being a core component because so many other blocks are tying into it. So this kind of "tying" must be done very carefully and judiciously in my opinion.
While I am all in favor of using Maven, or some tool like it, to manage dependencies, I really don't see how that has anything to do with licensing. Whether Cocoon is pre-packaged at cocoon.apache.org, or the end-user has to build it at their site, it really makes no difference. If a Cocoon customer cannot add on whatever value they choose and then distribute their product with Cocoon included, this is a violation of the Apache license, at least in spirit. Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Using Maven (or something similar) for dependencies? (Was: Cocoon's Rhino+continuations fork) > Well, AFAIU they will only run into the same legal hassle if > they try to *redistribute* cocoon as a whole!! So no problem > for the simple user. Is a company using Cocoon to deliver web applications redistributing Cocoon? (yes, I think). Then from what I can tell, a good portion of even our own committers, not to mention people on the users list would have a problem. > If it's really a problem for the ones distributing is still > the question anyway (I doubt it) But this way it's not the > ASF that would have to take the responsibility for that. > > I guess that's the point Yes, that's the point indeed. ASL is supposed to be a business-friendly license. If Cocoon uses distribution-time tricks to technically comply with the ASL but in the process nullifies its intent for some users, we have failed IMO. Geoff
