David Crossley wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Brian M Dube wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
The dependencies on the main facilities (e.g. WordPress and MySql)
seem okay to me. I expect that they would be treated as
system requirements, i.e. there is no use for the plugin if
there is no server available to connect to and extract content from.
(Snip)
Some of them (e.g. ehcache) are already in forrest core lib
but need to to updated.
If Forrest followed our usual technique of re-distributing
the supporting jars as a convenience, then definitely there
are some in that list that cannot be re-distributed:
e.g. hibernate - See 150 hits for that word on legal-discuss@
especially LEGAL-7 (and its linked issues) and the responses
to that and to LEGAL-9.
e.g. mysql-connector-java - I expect that there would be
similar issues. Is there no suitably licensed alternative?
I haven't found one. I don't have the energy to make the plugin work
without Hibernate and the MySQL driver. I'm happy to make the code
available elsewhere, but this is a blocker to host it here. Note I
have not contacted legal-discuss. The time and energy for that is
lacking, too.
If there is no way of getting into Forrest ...
We don't know that yet. Brian is not the only person
in this community. It is a pity that no-one can make
the effort to follow up on such legal aspects.
Peronslly I don't need to follow up. There is GPL code - that's the end
of the story for the ASF. I too have looked for alternatives in the past
- they don't (to my knowedge exist) and I've wasted much time on this in
the past.
I'm offering a solution. If others want to follow up on the legal front
fine - for me it is a dead end so lets get the code where it can be used.
I am not referring to finding a replacement. I mean that
our "legal-discuss" list is not a boogey monster. They
want to treat everything on a case-by-case basis.
No-one has yet even approached them on this matter.
See Henri's answer in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-8
The way that i see it is that is it up to our PMC.
It is an optional plugin. If it was the core of
Forrest then things would be very different.
Sure we cannot distribute those jars, but we can choose
to say to the user: You need to download xxx.jar and
add it to your lib directory.
If that approach is acceptable to this PMC then
so be it.
Someone needs to clarify that with legal-discuss.
As a PMC member I will support whatever those putting the effort into it
want to do. What I care most about is getting the code out there uner
clear legal terms. I respect the ASF hard line on licence compatailbity
as it results in considerable cost saving for thos doing procurement
(i.e. we can trust the ASF).
I don't like the idea of shipping code that does not work the way
everything else does (i.e. add the plugin to forrest.properties and then
download these jars). It breaks the way Forrest is supposed to learn.
By distributing from a place where we explicitly have a more relaxed
attitude to the GPL compatability argument and by highlighting this to
users we allow people to decide on the risk for themselves (if they do
not intend to redistribute there is no risk in any case).
I said I'm prepared to support whatever those doing the work want to do
- I set up an SF account for this purpose and I will do what is
necessary to allow this code to reach that distribution point if that is
what those doing the work want.
I don't think it is helpful to push in one direction or another and ask
for others to do the work to move in that direction.
Ross
