aries-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Hughes <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Aries (Incubating) v0.1 release candidate #2
Date Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:46:04 GMT
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

> 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.

>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.

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.

> --kevan

View raw message