1 Apr 2011 02:47
Re: Cobertura: in codehaus or out
Brett Porter <brett <at> apache.org>
2011-04-01 00:47:42 GMT
2011-04-01 00:47:42 GMT
The main advantage is not having to change the group ID. I don't think you'd be able to publish to o.c.mojo via ossrh. I think there has been some miscommunication. Combining the plugin under it's license and Cobertura under GPL certainly creates a work that is more restrictive - but it's still open source and Codehaus have said that from a policy PoV they are ok with that. What should change is the license headers, which use the ASF ones instead. It might be better to use a BSD license for better compatibility with the GPL. For my contributions, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with Benson having commit rights if he is keen to maintain it. - Brett On 01/04/2011, at 6:53 AM, Benson Margulies wrote: > Hello Mojo Developers, > > We're using cobertura at my job, and we'd really like aggregation to > work. So, I picked up MCOBERTURA-65 and added some testing to it in > the hopes of a commit. > > I just got bad news from Robert Scholte. There is a longstanding > problem of license friction with this plugin where the cobertura > license and the codehaus license don't play well together. The > original MCOBERTURA-65 patch already trangressed a 'what can you call' > boundary here. > > Hypothetically, the patch could be reworked to stay in bounds. > > However, it seems to me to be wasteful to build and maintain a maven(Continue reading)
RSS Feed