2011/10/20 Felix Knecht <[email protected]>: > On 10/18/2011 04:42 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> >> 2011/10/18<[email protected]>: >>> >>> Author: felixk >>> Date: Tue Oct 18 13:52:43 2011 >>> New Revision: 1185659 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1185659&view=rev >>> Log: >>> Both (emma / cobertura) plugins are for measure of codecoverage of tests. >>> Using only one of the plugins should fullfill the needs. If I've chosen for >>> any reasons the wrong one please let me know. For now I left cobertura >>> plugin. >> >> AFAIK cobertura is GPL while emma is CPL. As long as we don't bundle >> them and don't require them to build our products we should be fine >> with both, but I guess that if in doubt we should better choose emma >> as CPL is a category B license >> (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html). > > I thought the cobertura plugin to be of Apache license: > http://mojo.codehaus.org/cobertura-maven-plugin/license.html
The plugin is Apache Licensed but the cobertura jar is GPL It is also correctly reported in the dependency report: http://mojo.codehaus.org/cobertura-maven-plugin/dependencies.html But the right place to look for the license is here: http://cobertura.sourceforge.net/license.html "The Cobertura ant tasks are licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 1.1. The rest of Cobertura is licensed under the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0. See below for detailed explanations." And as you can see the cobertura license page has a long explanation and concludes with an "it all depends on how you interpret the license". > AFAICS it's only used to generate reports and it's not required to build the > product itself but for code review. > > I can find other Apache projects using this plugin also - but this doesn't > means that it's the way to go for us and I'm not an expert in such things. > Can anybody say more about this? What does cobertura gives us more than emma? If there is no reason to use cobertura instead of emma why don't we simply keep emma (you commit message sounds like you randomly chose one) so we don't waste time trying to give answers to the complex licensing stuff? (I believe we are safe to produce reports with a GPL product, but I'm not a lawyer, and I like emma) If, instead, we have good reasons to prefer cobertura then it makes sense to ask Robert (he's the most experienced in our team, wrt licensing) and maybe file an issue to ASF "LEGAL" jira project. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
