cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Rhino (once more)
Date Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:36:21 GMT
I think the resolution also mentioned that we have a one year timeframe
to change this (we should definitly check this). But as already half of
the time past without us doing anything about it, well...

Carsten

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Ok, but you guys still need to fix:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/legal/rhino1.5r4-continuations-R26.jar.license.txt
> and
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/trunk/commons/legal/src/main/resources/rhino-1.6R2.jar.license.txt
> 
> And does the user get an notification when Rhino is downloaded through
> Maven as required by http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-inproduct?
> 
> On 27.10.2006 17:11:24 Ralph Goers wrote:
>> This may not be too big a deal for Cocoon trunk.  So long as flowscript 
>> is an optional part of Cocoon I believe we are OK.  However, it probably 
>> also means that while other blocks can take advantage of flowscript they 
>> shouldn't rely on it.
>>
>> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>>> Hi Cocooners
>>>
>>> Before I start: Sorry to be a PITA to bring up Rhino again. ;-)
>>>
>>> Batik is starting to plan a new release and Rhino popped up in the back
>>> of my mind. I went looking in your codebase to see what you did with
>>> Rhino since I last checked. Turns out that Cocoon still lists Rhino as
>>> under the MPL 1.1 in both Trunk and the 2.1.x branch. And that's clearly
>>> wrong:
>>> http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/download.html
>>> http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/rhino/src/org/mozilla/javascript/Script.java
>>>
>>> And as you know this whole thing is further complicated by the fact that
>>> the NPL is currently de-facto an excluded license which means that
>>> neither Cocoon nor Batik are allowed to distribute or simply download 
>>> (through Maven without alerting the user) Rhino.
>>> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition-examples-npl
>>>
>>> Means both our projects would actually have to remove Rhino and make
>>> sure they run without it.
>>> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options
>>>
>>> Cliff wrote about certain options in March on legal-discuss (Message-ID:
>>> <c5e632550603241427y1e563dbdh9b0507a7ddfe9b5a@mail.gmail.com>). Nobody
>>> followed up on that. And it looks like both our projects have ignored
>>> the third-party licence policy so far concerning this issue. Any ideas
>>> how to proceed? Shall we raise it again on legal-discuss? Has there been
>>> any progress in trying to convinve the Rhino project to switch to the
>>> MPL?
>>>
>>> Jeremias Maerki
>>>
>>>   
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremias Maerki
> 
> 


-- 
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/

Mime
View raw message