commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Heger <oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Commons Configuration 1.4 based on RC1
Date Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:11:12 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 2/10/07, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> > On 2/10/07, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
>> >> Hi Niall,
>> >>
>> >> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I tried running the RAT[1] tool over the RC but invalid 
>> characters in
>> >> > conf/testEncoding.xml caused RAT to fail[2]  :-( Removing that 
>> file it
>> >> > higlighted a licensing issue - MockStaticMemoryInitialContextFactory
>> >> > has a "Copyright The Spice Group" and indicates that a copy of its
>> >> > license should be in LICENSE.txt - I checked LICENSE.txt and it 
>> didn't
>> >> > have one (just the ASF license).
>> >>
>> >> yes and no. The code is in use for unit tests but does not belong 
>> to the
>> >> core distribution i.e. users of commons-configuration do not 
>> inherit this
>> >> code and do therefore have to add only the ASF license. How did we 
>> handle
>> >> such cases earlier?
>> >
>> > Since its in the source distro then IMO we need to comply with their
>> > license as we are re-distributing their code. In their code it says
>> > the license should be included in the LICENSE file:
>> >
>> >    http://spice.codehaus.org/jndikit/license.html
>> >
>> > So it looks to me like you need to add it into LICENSE.txt and put a
>> > line in NOTICE.txt saying something like the following:
>> >     This product includes software developed by
>> >     The Spice Group (http://spice.codehaus.org/).
>>
>> This might be case for the source distro, but not for the binary one ...
>> which makes this tricky. Maybe it should be added with the additional
>> comment, that this only applies with the test code of c-c.
> 
> +1. It should a) say it's only for testing, and b) that it only
> applies to code distributed in the source distribution. I don't think
> it'll be the end of the world for the binary license file to have a
> section that doesn't apply to the binary.
> 
> Hen
> 
I think I have found a clean solution for this problem: I was able to 
replace the class in question by a mock implementation based on 
mockobjects, which we depend on anyway. So the dependency to 
spice-jndikit can be completely removed.

Oliver

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message