Jukka - It isn't about what I 'want' to go through. MIT license compatibility is irrelevant to this concern.
As I said before, the committers have final say, not I. If this gets added, then when we upgrade to that version of PDFBox, we will simply have to go through the necessary bureaucratic hoops. My only position is that that is indeed actual work and I'm not convinced the benefit is sufficient to justify it. -Mel -----Original Message----- From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 3:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Mocking Frameworks Hi, On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:37 AM, rey malahay <[email protected]> wrote: > I appreciate the fact that this issue is still under discussion. In the > meantime, I will put my work, which I intended to submit to the project, on > the backburners. Please feel free to go ahead with your patch. Just add the mock library as a dependency with test scope in the relevant POM file. If Mel wants to go through legal hoops that are way beyond what normal downstream users of PDFBox need, then IMHO it's up to him to do the extra work. And we're not even talking about any troublesome licenses here; MIT is perfectly compatible with all Apache licensing requirements. BR, Jukka Zitting
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
