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+Native+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]
