Is the continuous build set up part of the project though? That is, even if we use AntHillPro (or any other solution) for our own continuous build... there's nothing stopping anyone else setting up their own continous build using any technology they like. (Although if they do so can I strongly request them not to spam the qpid-dev list with the results :-) ).
As I see it, RedHat are looking to set up a continuous build machine inside that organisation in order to help their developers, and they are further volunteering to mail out the results to the list. Other contributors are also interested in setting up a continuous build environment to help their developers, but they would not be able to mail the list with results. Further, while Red Hat is obviously most focused on test results on Linux, other contributors will be requiring Qpid to run correctly on alternative operating systems (not limited to Windows). Some of our clients may only be able to build correctly on some platforms. For me the licensing questions are these: 1. is AntHill offering a license for any of the contributors to run a continuous build against the apache subversion project? 2. is there any restriction on the number of continuous build systems thus set up? 3. if individual contributors / organisations take wish advantage of such a license, is the qpid community as a whole happy to credit AntHill in the manner required. 4. finally even of the Qpid community is happy to credit AntHill, is Apache happy to allow Qpid to do so One point for clarification: Looking at AntHill's pricing model they use committer to a repository as their way of measuring users. I'm extrapolating from this to assume that they would thus be granting a license to build against the apache subversion repository. This would (I assume) not cover any development work on other repositories that people may be doing (for instance the people working on a BDB based store plugin). -- Rob On 09/03/07, Alan Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Ritchie wrote: > Does apache have windows build machines. We really need to build on > windows (.net) and RHEL 3 & 4 for c++ as well as java. Then interop > test the result. The guys from AntHillPro have said we can have a > licence we just need to sort out how/where we use it. > I'm wary about the licencing We won't get apache or anyone else to offer available-to-all test hosts for every os/hardware combination that every contributor cares about - we already have JPMC wanting windows, Red Hat obviously need to test on RH linux etc. So anyone with an interest in qpid (which essentially means anyone at all) must be free to run the qpid continuous build system on any hardware/os they want and modify to their special needs it if they have to. If the AntHillPro license does not allow that then I'm strongly against using it. We will put a lot of effort into this harness to make it work well, I'd rather put a little more effort into a solution thats available to all (e.g. CruiseControl) than use an easier/slicker proprietary solution but end up with a fractured community and forked testing efforts because some parties can't use it due to licensing restrictions. Cheers, Alan.
