Licenses issues in selenium-rc

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

Hi all,
For the Apache OFBiz project (ofbiz.apache.org), we are regularly
asking the same question about license on selenium rc, in order to
integrate the jar into our project. Apache Foundation rules are very
stricts about licenses (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html),
and when looking inside the selenium-rc jar, some files are not
graduating for inclusion.

A long time ago, these issue was created inside our jira instance :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12470728
It's still true for the files mentionned.

So, what we have :
cssQuery is licensed under LGPL -> migration to sizzle would do the trick
util.js / dom.js / xmltoken.js / xpath.js (in core/xpath/) are
licensed to Google, and written by  Steffen Meschkat
<[hidden email]>. Would he agree to choose an Apache-2 compatible
license ?
snapsie.js does not have a licence header
scriptaculous does not mention a license, but a quick question to the
Apache legal team should give us the answer.

The sizzle issue has already been created :
http://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=336

This email is sent after some tweet exchanges between Simon, Hans and
me, as we were talking about licenses. 140 chars is a bit too small
for this !

Cheers,

--
Erwan de FERRIERES

[Santiago Suarez Ordoñez]

>
> cssQuery is licensed under LGPL -> migration to sizzle would do the trick
>
...
>
The sizzle issue has already been created :
> http://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=336


Yay!! +1000!

Santi

[Simon Stewart]

Hi,

Thanks for bringing this up: time to start sorting it out. The move
from cssQuery to sizzle seems sensible to me, I'm all for it.

I can ask about the Google licensed code and get some clarification on that.

Snapsie was written by Haw-Bin, who's a selenium developer. We can ping him too.

If scriptalicious proves tricky, please let us know!

Simon

> cssQuery is licensed under LGPL -> migration to sizzle would do the trick
> util.js / dom.js / xmltoken.js / xpath.js (in core/xpath/) are
> licensed to Google, and written by  Steffen Meschkat
> <[hidden email]>. Would he agree to choose an Apache-2 compatible
> license ?
> snapsie.js does not have a licence header
> scriptaculous does not mention a license, but a quick question to the


On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> For the Apache OFBiz project (ofbiz.apache.org), we are regularly
> asking the same question about license on selenium rc, in order to
> integrate the jar into our project. Apache Foundation rules are very
> stricts about licenses (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html),
> and when looking inside the selenium-rc jar, some files are not
> graduating for inclusion.
>
> A long time ago, these issue was created inside our jira instance :
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12470728
> It's still true for the files mentionned.
>
> So, what we have :
> cssQuery is licensed under LGPL -> migration to sizzle would do the trick
> util.js / dom.js / xmltoken.js / xpath.js (in core/xpath/) are
> licensed to Google, and written by  Steffen Meschkat
> <[hidden email]>. Would he agree to choose an Apache-2 compatible
> license ?
> snapsie.js does not have a licence header
> scriptaculous does not mention a license, but a quick question to the
> Apache legal team should give us the answer.
>
> The sizzle issue has already been created :
> http://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=336
>
> This email is sent after some tweet exchanges between Simon, Hans and
> me, as we were talking about licenses. 140 chars is a bit too small
> for this !
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Erwan de FERRIERES
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Selenium Developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [hidden email].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email].
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/selenium-developers?hl=en.
>
>

[Erwan de FERRIERES-2]

Hi,

scriptalicious should not be an issue, as it is already in other
Apache projects (eg: tapestry or wicket).

Cheers,

2010/5/10 Simon Stewart <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up: time to start sorting it out. The move
> from cssQuery to sizzle seems sensible to me, I'm all for it.
>
> I can ask about the Google licensed code and get some clarification on that.
>
> Snapsie was written by Haw-Bin, who's a selenium developer. We can ping him too.
>
> If scriptalicious proves tricky, please let us know!
>
> Simon
>
>> cssQuery is licensed under LGPL -> migration to sizzle would do the trick
>> util.js / dom.js / xmltoken.js / xpath.js (in core/xpath/) are
>> licensed to Google, and written by  Steffen Meschkat
>> <[hidden email]>. Would he agree to choose an Apache-2 compatible
>> license ?
>> snapsie.js does not have a licence header
>> scriptaculous does not mention a license, but a quick question to the
>
>
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Erwan de FERRIERES
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> For the Apache OFBiz project (ofbiz.apache.org), we are regularly
>> asking the same question about license on selenium rc, in order to
>> integrate the jar into our project. Apache Foundation rules are very
>> stricts about licenses (http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html),
>> and when looking inside the selenium-rc jar, some files are not
>> graduating for inclusion.
>>
>> A long time ago, these issue was created inside our jira instance :
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12470728
>> It's still true for the files mentionned.
>>
>> So, what we have :
>> cssQuery is licensed under LGPL -> migration to sizzle would do the trick
>> util.js / dom.js / xmltoken.js / xpath.js (in core/xpath/) are
>> licensed to Google, and written by  Steffen Meschkat
>> <[hidden email]>. Would he agree to choose an Apache-2 compatible
>> license ?
>> snapsie.js does not have a licence header
>> scriptaculous does not mention a license, but a quick question to the
>> Apache legal team should give us the answer.
>>
>> The sizzle issue has already been created :
>> http://code.google.com/p/selenium/issues/detail?id=336
>>
>> This email is sent after some tweet exchanges between Simon, Hans and
>> me, as we were talking about licenses. 140 chars is a bit too small
>> for this !
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Erwan de FERRIERES
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Selenium Developers" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [hidden email].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email].
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/selenium-developers?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Selenium Developers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [hidden email].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email].
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/selenium-developers?hl=en.
>
>

--
Erwan de FERRIERES
tel p. : 06 32 88 20 22