2009/8/25 David-Sarah Hopwood <[email protected]>: > > [email protected] wrote: >> Index: third_party/java/emma/LICENSE >> =================================================================== >> --- third_party/java/emma/LICENSE (revision 0) >> +++ third_party/java/emma/LICENSE (revision 0) >> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ >> +From http://emma.sourceforge.net/license.html: >> + >> +EMMA: License >> + >> +EMMA is distributed under the terms of Common Public License v1.0 and >> +is thus free for both open-source and commercial development. A copy >> +of this license is included with EMMA distribution. You can view IBM's >> +CPL FAQ here. > > <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php> > > # 4. COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION > # > # [...] Therefore, if a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial > # product offering, such Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby > # agrees to defend and indemnify every other Contributor ("Indemnified > # Contributor") against any losses, damages and costs (collectively > # "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal actions brought > # by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the extent caused > # by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Contributor in connection with > # its distribution of the Program in a commercial product offering. > > Blech. This discriminates against commercial redistributors, and > therefore to my mind violates clause 6 of the Open Source Definition > ("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endevour"), and possibly also > clause 5 ("No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups"). OSI slipped > up badly in approving this license. > > <http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php> > > It may not be obvious to "Commercial Contributors" that they are taking on > this liability by redistributing Caja, so at the very least this license > gotcha should be documented in the top-level Caja license, so that anyone > who wants to can strip out Emma (it is just a code coverage tool, right?)
Hmm. This is something that's loaded at runtime by ant when we build coverage. No Caja code references anything in the Emma namespace. > (CPL is also not GPL-compatible, unlike the Apache license in the > Apache->GPL direction.) > > > Alternative Java code coverage tools: > <http://java-source.net/open-source/code-coverage> > > -- > David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com > >
