(Oops .. I forgot to use the Apache smtp relay so the previous message
was probably discarded as spam)
Hello guys;
The LGPL/SPL licensing text is just left over from the old licensing: I
will take care of
that. About the usage in Apache OpenOffice, I have just been lazy. It is
not urgent
since SPL is category B but the Apache OpenOffice port in FreeBSD
already uses
the new ALv2 code.
AFAICT, the code is license clean. Do note that all the source files
carry an Apache
License 2 header and the code was already submitted to the Apache Software
Foundation under a SGA so you can just take the code and use it without
delay.
The code is straightforward to build with Ant.
I added the requested addresses as new committers in apache-extras. About
the general state of the code: note that we don't pass all the tests. I
would've
liked to run coverity scan over the code but I never found time so I
leave it as a suggestion for future development.
Welcome and enjoy!
Pedro.
On 08/01/2015 01:25 p.m., Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
That makes sense, thanks for that!
So it is just a glip with the spurious LGPL license file, you say. Phuh!
You can perhaps add Google Code accounts st...@mygrid.org.uk
<mailto:st...@mygrid.org.uk> and a...@mygrid.org.uk
<mailto:a...@mygrid.org.uk> as we have both been dealing with the
beanshell scripting.
A groupId might need to be sorted for Maven, separate from
org.beanshell I guess.
Or would we then be able to final to import the code into Apache
Commons as initially planned and encouraged?
On 8 Jan 2015 18:15, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetrip...@apache.org
<mailto:simonetrip...@apache.org>> wrote:
Hi Stian!
I added Pedro in CC who's the guy who helped on migrating the
codebase :)
So, IIRC, BS original author donated the codebase and signed a CLA
in order to trasfer the rights to the ASF, if it hasn't released
yet it is really just a matter of checking license (header,
NOTICE, ...) and make the first release.
If someone from Taverna is interested on taking part to the
project, just let us know so we can add you in the committers
list, so we can work towards a first release all together. In that
way you won't need to include Beanshell as Taverna extra... does
it make sense?
All the best!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk
<mailto:soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
Thank you for your reply and updates. As I know well myself,
real life often comes in the way of good intentions..
I looked at the apache extra beanshell, and it might be what
we need. OpenOffice is not using it, for some reason.
But we have two small issues;
A) No jar, not in Maven Central. Would we (can we) need to
publish it as org.apache.taverna.ext.beanshell ? Or do we have
to prepare this JAR ouside Apache?
B) source code still claims to be LGPL/SPL licensed --
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/issues/detail?id=11
On 8 Jan 2015 15:05, "Simone Tripodi"
<simonetrip...@apache.org <mailto:simonetrip...@apache.org>>
wrote:
Hi all guys and very nice to meet you Stian!
thanks a lot for involving me in the discussion, very
appreciated :)
Unfortunately at that time we proposed Beanshell in a very
bad timing, we were not able to coordinate to each other
in order to promptly follow-up the discussion and then
some other things happened in the private lives (I got a
new Job who didn't let me have spare time and so on)...
BUT fortunately a small group of people from Apache
OpenOffice didn't back down and is maintaining Beanshell
under Apache Extras[1], releasing also new releases - and
it is ASLv2.0 licensed :)
I think you Apache Taverna guys can go ahead working with
new Beanshell releases without any blocking issue :)
I really hope that helps, have a nice day and all the best!
-Simo
PS I am pretty sure you are already aware of it, but
Taverna in Italian stands for typical old-fashioned
typical restaurant in Rome! :)
[1] https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
<http://people.apache.org/%7Esimonetripodi/>
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk
<mailto:soiland-re...@cs.manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
(CC-ing Simone Tripodi, who was the champion of the
proposed Beanshell
incubator.
Simone, we're Apache Taverna, an incubating project
for a workflow
system. Taverna relies a lot on Beanshell - but as we
understood it's
official release to be under LGPL we are facing the
requirement to
keep that functionality as a non-Apache plugin)
Agree that loosing Beanshell by default would be a bit
of a challenge
- specially for the Taverna Server which won't have an
easy "Install
Taverna Extras" button.
I went through again the archives at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/BeanShellProposal
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201305.mbox/%3ccajo+ubunm7ahmov_4tvt6j8nojmcmmpddh1xonfw5b00ty6...@mail.gmail.com%3E
it seems the Apache Beanshell incubator didn't really
get accepted -
but supposedly could go directly into Apache Commons
anyway?
I am unable to find any further trace of it - so
apparently nothing happened :(
Perhaps Simone has some historical details? Are we
able to kickstart
this back again?
The source at
http://svn.codespot.com/a/apache-extras.org/beanshell/
(2.05b5) is however granted under Apache license.
https://code.google.com/a/apache-extras.org/p/beanshell/
Perhaps we could use that? Question is - how to get it
into JAR-form.
It is even "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation
(ASF)" and so
should be importable even in source-code form -
although that might be
better towards Apache Commons BSF than under Apache
Taverna -
https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-bsf/
https://code.google.com/p/beanshell2/ is a fork which
seems to be more
active (but remains LGPL :-( ).
Apache OpenOffice seems to also have Beanshell support
(using 2.0b1) -
but they only includes it if the build has
"ENABLE_CATEGORY_B==YES".
They even copied the source here under the svn branch:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/!svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/%21svn/bc/1336449/incubator/ooo/trunk/ext_sources/ea570af93c284aa9e5621cd563f54f4d-bsh-2.0b1-src.tar.gz>
Actually now I see that the Beanshell 2.0b4 (which we
use) is
dual-licensed and also available as "Sun Public
License" - which
could somewhat be OK under Apache:
http://beanshell.org/license.html
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
So.. given this - what should we do? It seems we don't
need to move
Beanshell ACtivity out of Apache Taverna after all. (yay!)
On 8 January 2015 at 11:27, Donal K. Fellows
<donal.k.fell...@manchester.ac.uk
<mailto:donal.k.fell...@manchester.ac.uk>> wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 08:37, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> I can however see that there is a danger that the
>> some-repositories/some-releases approach can also
lead to "Need to
>> release A so I can release B so I can release C"
problem when you are
>> propagating changes downstream, and then there's
the danger of the
>> proposed repositories being wrong (we won't know
that before doing
>> several releases). Other Taverna developers with
experience of the 2.x
>> releases might want to have a say on this.
>
>
> I think you've about covered everything. One point
of interest is that
> we've maintained Taverna Server in the separate
repository model for a
> few years now, and that seemed to work fairly well.
What I'd do for the
> cases where we had a feature of the server that
depended on a specific
> change elsewhere (such as a change in how some
command line option was
> processed) was to do a feature branch for that
specific thing, so that
> we could avoid breaking things elsewhere until that
feature hit an
> identifiable version (even if a SNAPSHOT one) and
could do the merge then.
>
> The (equivalent to) master branch was kept in a
state where it would be
> buildable, testable and near releasable at any time.
(Doing a release
> was a matter of adjusting version numbers for
various things and setting
> a tag, which is pretty lightweight.) This, which was
possible because
> the server was only loosely coupled to the engine,
made most development
> easy. (The odd times when releases happened which
Stian disapproved of
> ;-) were when there was a project in desperate need
of a fix and the
> time to the next engine release was huge.)
>
> I should note that the Beanshell activity stuff
being LGPL causing
> problems is a particular problem, as removing it is
extremely disruptive
> to existing users. To be clear, it pushes the chance
of having an
> existing workflow that will function with the new
system to about 0%;
> virtually all Taverna workflows out there in the
wild use Beanshells.
> The chance of getting all that wild code ported to
something else is
> also pretty small. (Unless someone's got a
nicely-licensed library for
> transforming Beanshell code into some other
language. :-D)
>
> Donal.
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester
http://soiland-reyes.com/stian/work/
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
