CxxTest (http://cxxtest.sourceforge.net/) is LGPL which is an excluded license (http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html) so it cant be used. Doesn't matter that its only tests so CxxTest wont be distributed in a distro, we can't use anything LGPL.
...ant On 10/24/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So who do we have to check with? > > Brady > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany roadmap] > > My comment was based on what Sam Ruby told us last time we went round > this loop. Unfortunately my trawl through mail archives can't find > anything. I'm no legal expert. > > I believe using cxxtest would be OK but we need to check before using > it. > > Cheers, > > On 23/10/2007, Adriano Crestani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Oh, sorry Simon, my mistake, it was really Pete who said it ; ) > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > On 10/23/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Haleh, > > > > > > > > This way we would be using the Cxxtest api, and according to Simon > > > > > it's considered derived work, so we couldn't distribute it, right > Simon? > > > > > > > This comment came from Pete, not from me. I'm not familiar with the > > > > stdcxx license so I'll defer to Pete to explain why it's a concern. > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > Adriano Crestani > > > > > > > > On 10/23/07, haleh mahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>But if you go with what Simon suggested, you leave the tests and > > > >>test > > > tool > > > >>outside of distribution. Wouldn't that work? > > > >> > > > >>On 10/23/07, Adriano Crestani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been > > > >>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you > > > >>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be > > > >>>considered a derivative work. > > > >>> > > > >>>So, does it mean we cannot distribute a code using a api that we > > > >>>cannot distribute? Then we should start looking for another unit > > > >>>test. I was looking on the web site I commented before, most of > > > >>>them are GPL : (, > > > >> > > > >>but > > > >> > > > >>>I > > > >>>found this 2: > > > >>> > > > >>>http://unittest-cpp.sourceforge.net/ > > > >>>http://tut-framework.sourceforge.net/ > > > >>> > > > >>>Their license seems to have almost no restriction, but I cannot > > > >>>tell > > > for > > > >>>sure if they are compatible with ASF license. > > > >>> > > > >>>Regards, > > > >>>Adriano Crestani > > > >>> > > > >>>On 10/23/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>>I think this is one for the legal discuss list. This has been > > > >>>>discussed before and I think the conclusion was that because you > > > > >>>>code to the cxxtest apis to write your test code it could be > > > >>>>considered a derivative work. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Cheers, > > > >>>> > > > >>>>On 23/10/2007, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>I think it's fine to distribute unit test source and tell > > > >>>>>people > > > >> > > > >>what > > > >> > > > >>>>>tool they need to build and run the tests. And I agree that > > > >>>>>having > > > >> > > > >>a > > > >> > > > >>>>>list of suitable unit test tools on the Web site is helpful. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Simon > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>>Hi Simon, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>Yes, you are right, I forgot this option, there is no problem > > > >>>>>>to > > > >>>> > > > >>>>distribute > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>the unit test source code :P. But anyway, the list contained > > > >>>>>>on > > > >> > > > >>the > > > >> > > > >>>>web site > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>I could be helpful :) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>Regards, > > > >>>>>>Adriano Crestani > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>On 10/22/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Why does the test tool need to be distributed with a Tuscany > > > >>> > > > >>>release? > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>If the build depends on having the tool available, then I can > > > > >>>>>>>see > > > >>> > > > >>>some > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>justification for this, but even then it would be possible > > > >>>>>>>for > > > >>> > > > >>>people > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>who build the source to download the tool separately. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Simon > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Adriano Crestani wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Hi, > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Brady suggested to use CxxTest only on development process > > > >>>>>>>>and > > > >>> > > > >>>don't > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>distribute it with the released source. However, whoever > > > >>>>>>>>wants to > > > >>>> > > > >>>>modify > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>the > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>code from a release would want to test it, to check if the > > > >>>> > > > >>>>modifications > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>does not compromise the software. So, I suggest to look for > > > >> > > > >>another > > > >> > > > >>>>text > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>unit tool that could be distributed with the released > > > >>>>>>>>source. I > > > >>>> > > > >>>>really > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>dont > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>know any other, but searching on web I found a list of open > > > >> > > > >>source > > > >> > > > >>>>C/C++ > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>unit test tools on [1]. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>[1] http://www.opensourcetesting.org/unit_c.php > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Regards, > > > >>>>>>>>Adriano Crestani > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>On 8/10/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>Good idea, I always prefer to see plenty of documentation. > > > >>>>>>>>>I > > > >>> > > > >>>updated > > > >>> > > > >>>>the > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>wiki with a documentation feature. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Native+ > > > >>Next+R > > > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>elease+Contents > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>What sort of help do you think I'll have with these > features? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>-------------------- > > > >>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > > >>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - > > > >>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > > >>>>>>>>>From: haleh mahbod [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 PM > > > >>>>>>>>>To: [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: > > > >>>>>>>>>Tuscany > > > >>>> > > > >>>>roadmap] > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>How about enhancing the documentation (architecture, get > > > >>>>>>>>>started > > > >>> > > > >>>and > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>user > > > >>>>>>>>>doc) to help new people come on board faster? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>Another thought might be to have an integration story > > > >>>>>>>>>between > > > >>> > > > >>>Native > > > >>> > > > >>>>and > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>Java. Some of this work started for OSCon, for example a > > > >>>>>>>>>sample > > > >> > > > >>of > > > >> > > > >>>a > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>composite which include C++ and Java components. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>On 7/26/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>That looks good. I think there is more than enough in that > > > > >>>>>>>>>>list > > > >>> > > > >>>to > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>justify a release. My priorities would be: > > > >>>>>>>>>>1) upgrade to the sca 1.0 spec levels (assembly and cpp). > > > >>>>>>>>>>2) build system move to ant (enough there for a release) > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>We should discuss your ideas for the rearchitecture of the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>data > > > >>>> > > > >>>>model. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>It sounds like a good idea so maybe we can flesh out a > > > >>>>>>>>>>proposal > > > >>> > > > >>>for > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>that. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>Cheers, > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>On 26/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Hello all, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>I created a wiki page detailing the TuscanySCA Native > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Next > > > >>> > > > >>>Release > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Contents, which will probably be called M4. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/SCA+Nativ > > > >>>>e+Ne > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>xt+R > > > >>>>>>>>>>>elease+Contents > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Can I get some feedback on the items listed there. Also, > > > >> > > > >>what's > > > >> > > > >>>>the > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Apache procedure to start planning and implementing the > > > >> > > > >>changes? > > > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - > > > >>>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:00 AM > > > >>>>>>>>>>>To: [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [SCA Native] next release content [was: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Tuscany roadmap] > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I forgot to mention another one in my previous post: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- get the test suite up to date and working. I don't > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>like > > > >>> > > > >>>making > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>changes to code without running a good unit/basic test > suite. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>We do not have ANY test suite. I run through the samples > > > >>>>>>>>>>>to > > > >> > > > >>test > > > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>changes. The code under tuscany/cpp/sca/test is not > > > >>>>>>>>>>>maintained > > > >>> > > > >>>and > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>should probably be discarded. I think we need to build up > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>a > > > >> > > > >>unit > > > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>test suite and would welcome suggestions on how to start > > > >>>>>>>>>>>this > > > >>> > > > >>>(use > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>cppunit?) > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I can start a separate thread for the ant vs make > discussion. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Basically, I think it would be easier to simplify the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>build process using make. I've looked through some of > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the makefiles > > > >>> > > > >>>and > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>they're horrendous. :) > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Let's discuss it here then. We need to be able to build > > > >>>>>>>>>>>from > > > >>>> > > > >>>>source > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on windows, linux and Mac. On Windows we settled on MSVC > > > >>>>>>>>>>>8 so > > > >> > > > >>it > > > >> > > > >>>>can > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build with the free studio express. For linux we settled > > > >>>>>>>>>>>on > > > >>>> > > > >>>>automake > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>as it seemed to be fairly standard for C/C++ open source > > > >>> > > > >>>projects. > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>In doing this I had to learn automake and learnt to hate > > > >>>>>>>>>>>it > > > >>>> > > > >>>>;-) ... > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>and as you say some of the makefiles are ugly. If you > > > >>>>>>>>>>>believe > > > >> > > > >>an > > > >> > > > >>>>ant > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>based build would be better then I'll happily go along > > > >>>>>>>>>>>with > > > >>> > > > >>>that. > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps you could start this off by showing us what the > > > >>>>>>>>>>>build > > > >>>> > > > >>>>would > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>look like for, say, cpp/sca/runtime/core ?? > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software - > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:53 AM > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>To: [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [SCA Native] next release content [was: Tuscany > > > >>> > > > >>>roadmap] > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>We should definitely start planning some content for the > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>next > > > >>> > > > >>>SCA > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Native release. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On 12/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Is there some sort of TuscanySCA roadmap? I've looked > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>around > > > >> > > > >>a > > > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>bit and > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>haven't found one. I was curious what the future plans > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for TuscanySCA CPP were in particular. I have a few > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>ideas and I > > > >>> > > > >>>was > > > >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>curious if they had been contemplated yet. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move from Assembly Model 0.96 to 1.0 > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Definitely. We also need to move the CPP extension to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>the > > > >> > > > >>1.0C++ > > > >> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>C&I spec version > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Move to ant instead of make > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I need to understand this proposal a little better. Can > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>you > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>elaborate? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Probably worth starting a separate thread to discuss > this. > > > >> > > > >>I'm > > > >> > > > >>>>all > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>for > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>simplifying the build though! > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Remove runtime dependancy on model data structure > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>(slight changes to > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>data/model shouldnt affect runtime usage) > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ok > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Support additional WSDL bindings: RPC, DOC encoded... > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>sounds good. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>-------------------- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Brady Johnson > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA Rogue Wave Software > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Cheers, > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>-- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Pete > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>--- > > > >> > > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>-- > > > >>>>Pete > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Pete > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
