I think it is fine if we don't include the source code from softwares fallen into "Category B”. In this particular case, let's simply use junit 5.4.0.M1 directly to avoid it.
Regards, -Ian. On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:44 PM Xin Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry I mean “convenience binary” i.e. a binary made fro a source > package for the convenience of users who don’t want to compile the source > code. > > Does it mean that if I use the jar generated from the source code of EPL2， > also need to be placed in the LICENSE file? > > Huxing Zhang <[email protected]> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午4:34写道： > > > Hi, > > > > Can you elaborate why you need the codes in 5.4.0? > > Maybe we can find a way to work it around. > > If not, I think option 1 and option 2 looks both ok to me. > > If I have to choose, I choose option 1 because this is a test > > dependency, it should not have too much impact to the code quality. > > If choose option 2 and have to wait 2 month, maybe there will be lots > > of refactoring work like resolving conflicts. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:09 PM Xin Wang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > If so , I think there are two methds: > > > 1. Use jupiter version5.4.0-M1 [1]: but it is a milestone version, > not > > a > > > release version > > > 2. Use jupiter version5.4.0: the release date is uncertain （maybe > need > > > two monthes） > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/junit-team/junit5/releases/tag/r5.4.0-M1 > > > > > > Justin Mclean <[email protected]> 于2019年1月10日周四 下午3:50写道： > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > I have a question :I ues junit-jupiter5.3.2, but for some test > > cases, I > > > > > copied some source code from junit 5.4.0.M1 , the files are as > > follow : > > > > > org.junit.jupiter.api.support.io.TempDirectory.java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptororg.junit.jupiter.api.TestMethodOrderorg.junit.jupiter.api.Orderorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodOrdererContextorg.junit.jupiter.api.MethodDescriptor > > > > > > > > > > the license is Eclipse Public License - v 2.0 > > > > > Do I need to mark it in the LICENSE file? > > > > > > > > Sorry EPL is considered "Category B” [1] and isn’t fully compatible > > with > > > > ALv2 can’t be included in a source release. Is there another way of > > doing > > > > this? > > > > > > > > if it was the connivance binary then yes you would need to put it in > > the > > > > LICENSE. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Justin > > > > > > > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > > > > > > > > -- > > Best Regards！ > > Huxing > > >
