aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate #2
Date Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:30:38 GMT

On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:

> On 29 April 2010 17:11, Kevan Miller <> wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
>>> I've raised it on legal-discuss. Has the following option been
>>> considered to satisfy the "... and include the License file at
>>> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt.":
>>> Include that LICENSE.txt file separately from the project's LICENSE
>>> file in a directory called glassfish/bootstrap/legal directory within
>>> the jar/zip AND include the CDDL only in the project's LICENSE file
>>> located at the root of the zip.
>> Well, you could remove the CDDL license from LICENSE and add an entry in LICENSE
that points to the LICENSE.txt (i.e. the CDDL+GPL license file).
> I was thinking keep the CDDL license in LICENSE, and not add the GPL
> portion. The LICENSE would then represent the licensing of the files
> in the zip - as we have elected to license the two schema files as

I don't think that's correct. I do think you could add a note to the LICENSE file (preceding
the CDDL+GPL license) that states we are choosing the CDDL license.

>> Something like 'licenses/GLASSFISH-LICENSE.txt'. Some projects follow similar schemes
-- one AL2 LICENSE file with multiple licenses in a 'license' subdirectory.
> This would be to satisfy the text in the header in the schema file
> which says "... and include the License file at
> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt." ... so this specifically says
> to include the License file rather than append the License file to the
> one we have.

IMO, the intent of "include the license file" is to include the content of the license file.

>> My personal preference (Geronimo consumes a lot of artifacts) is to have all licensing
information within the LICENSE file. It's much easier for consumers of your artifacts to review/follow...
> Which would normally be mine too, but I was trying to avoid confusing
> consumers who review the LICENSE file and on doing so would see 'GPL'
> even though none of the artifacts in the zip are licensed under the
> GPL. AIUI, while the schema files were originally CDDL+GPL, because
> we've elected to use the CDDL license, any consumers of our package
> cannot subsequently relicense them as GPL.

You are correct. IIUC, consumers of the Aries' package cannot reapply the GPL portion of the
CDDL+GPL dual license.  

> I think both options have merits and pitfalls and since I want to get
> on and create a new RC and the most agreed on approach is to put the
> full CDDL+GPL in the LICENSE file, then that is what I'll do.
> Thanks though, I do appreciate the discussion.

No problem. And thanks for working though these issues! First releases for a project are typically
difficult. And as we've discovered, there are inconsistencies within the ASF -- I've found
licensing to be a process of refinement...

If avoiding confusion is really a goal, then the solution is to stop including CDDL+GPL dual
licensed artifacts. Changing the licensing information to avoid "confusion" isn't the answer.

View raw message