email2trac and Apache Bloodhound

[ian.wild@…]

Hi Bas,

I'm looking after WANdisco's input to Apache Bloodhound, which is an ASF
project based on Trac, aiming to improve the default packaging
and provide an easier to use and more accessible defect tracker out of the
box. You can find out more at http://incubator.apache.org/bloodhound/
(although
it is still early days!)

As part of the work we'd doing we are hoping to include some useful Trac
plugins, pre-configured and ready to use out of the box. In the case of
email2trac, we believe your tool provides essential functionality and are
wondering if you would consider allowing this to be used as part of
Bloodhound? We'd be happy to help maintain the tool going forwards and
would also welcome any suggestions you have for ongoing collaboration.

Obviously the GPL license of email2trac restricts us from including
email2trac as it is today, so the first question would be whether this is
something you and any other authors of email2trac be interested in talking
about further, either by email or on a quick conference call?

Best Wishes,

Ian

--
Ian Wild
Director of Engineering
WANdisco, Inc.

Cell    : +44 (0)7961193722
Office DDI: +44 (0)114 3030472
US: +1 925 3801734

http://www.wandisco.com

uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com <http://www.ubersvn.com/>

Everything you need to deploy Subversion in the Enterprise
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion<http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/multis
ite>

Subversion community
http://www.svnforum.org

[bas]

Ian,

Thanks for the interest. I do not mind to change the license for email2trac. Before a license change, i want to know what the problem is with GPL license and the apache bloodhound project?

regards

PS) I have also emailed some suggestions for the bloodhound project. So i am familiar with the project ;-)

[ian.wild@…]

Hi Bas,

Thanks for getting back to us, we appreciate it.

Apache Bloodhound is licensed under Apache v2 license. This is a permissive
license which isn't compatible with the Copyleft GPL license. If you don't
mind email2trac being distributed under an Apache v2 license that is very
helpful.

Gary will be in touch with the details of what we plan to do here, and of
coure we will be happy to feedback any code changes or improvements we make
too.

Let me know if there's anything at all you need and thanks again for the
feedback and assistance.

Ian



On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM, email2trac <email2trac@sara.nl> wrote:

[gary.martin@…]

Hi Bas,

As Ian says, it would be very good to be able to use email2trac in Apache Bloodhound. In case you need a more specific answer to what stops us from being able to use GPL licensed code, there is a summary of the Apache Software Foundation's understanding of the issues here:

​http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

I don't think I can describe it any better than that page but one of the things I believe it is saying is that the Apache Software Foundation considers both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 to be

"incompatible with ASF's requirement that all Apache software must be distributed under the Apache License 2.0."

Does that clarify the issue at all? I'd be happy to try to answer more questions about this.

I have been considering this ticket to only be about licensing and so if there turn out to be other issues I think we can discuss these on the bloodhound-dev mailing list and in new tickets. Hope that is OK. I will look to see if there is anything that we can help with improving.

Thanks.

[bas]

Hi Gary,

I just read your info and it is good description. I will contact some authors and let you know if we rerelease it under the Apache License.

regards

[bas]

I have just committed the license change. Is this the right procedure or did i missed something?

[bas]

See Changeset [593] by bas

[ian.wild@…]

This is fantastic for us thanks Bas.

We're looking forward to including your plugin in Bloodhound.

Ian
--
Ian Wild
Director of Engineering
WANdisco, Inc.



On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:07 PM, email2trac <email2trac@sara.nl> wrote:

[anonymous]

Replying to bas:

I have just committed the license change. Is this the right procedure or did i missed something?

Thanks a lot for doing that.

Strictly speaking, I don't think that you needed to specify in the source headers that the code is licensed to the Apache Software Foundation itself.

Perhaps something similar to this would be more appropriate:

#       Copyright 2002 SARA
#
#       Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
#       you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
#       You may obtain a copy of the License at
#
#       http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
#
#       Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
#       distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
#       WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
#       See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
#       limitations under the License.

Hope that makes sense.

[bas]

(In [595]) changed license header, see #292, thanks

[anonymous]

thank you.