NAnt license
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Andrey Shchekin
Dec 22, 2009, 9:21:00 AM12/22/09
to phantom...@googlegroups.com
This is a continuation of http://twitter.com/JeremySkinner/status/6928808406:
@ashmind was wondering how far we could push the Phantom<->nant integration without having to license phantom as gpl
Well it was quite stupid of me not to check the license, but there are my opinions:
- The NAnt license is not purely GPL and has an exception about independent modules, however I have a feeling our functionality is not independent enough.
- Currently, the only thing linking to NAnt is Integration.NAnt library, so in the worst case it will have to be GPL and everything else can be left as is.
Since I use dynamic composition (MEF), main Phantom is not affected by integration library license. - I reference some stuff from NAnt in the Integration.NAnt (obviously), but I can embed this stuff into the generated integration assembly instead, which will mean that I do not even have to link to NAnt directly, and only generated assembly will be under the GPL.
I currently think point 2 is the most realistic. But I think we should ask NAnt authors on what exactly do they mean by independent modules.
Also, there a very interesting question on whether all NAnt build files in existence are under the GPL. On one hand, they are not programs, on other hand...
Andrey
Jeremy Skinner
Dec 22, 2009, 9:52:11 AM12/22/09
to phantom...@googlegroups.com
After reading some posts on the nant mailing list, I think it's pretty clear that Phantom.Integration.Nant would have to be released as GPL (NantContrib falls into the same category). I'd rather not do this, but I guess it's the best option.
2009/12/22 Andrey Shchekin <ash...@gmail.com>
Jeremy Skinner
Dec 22, 2009, 9:55:42 AM12/22/09
to phantom...@googlegroups.com
Saying this, I now notice that NantContrib is LGPL rather than GPL, so now I'm completely confused.
2009/12/22 Jeremy Skinner <jer...@jeremyskinner.co.uk>
0 new messages