commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [fileupload] please help on reviewing FILEUPLOAD-199
Date Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:46:30 GMT
Hi again Luc/all,

I just realised that our fellows of Apache Geronimo ship an ALv2.0
version of javax.mail[1] - there should be any kind of issue on
importing and adapting their source code, right?

TIA!
-Simo

[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-javamail_1.4_spec-1.4/src/main/java/javax/mail/internet/MimeUtility.java

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 4:13 PM, luc <luc@spaceroots.org> wrote:
> Le 2013-03-12 11:15, Simone Tripodi a écrit :
>>
>> Hi all guys,
>
>
> Hi Simone,
>
>
>>
>> due to FILEUPLOAD-199, I shaded 2 classes from javax.mail package to
>> support RFC2047 header values, I kindly ask you a couple of feedbacks
>> about:
>>
>>  * verify the shaded jar works in an integration test, if some of you
>> has an application where experimenting the current SNAPSHOT;
>>
>>  * review the legals: I updated the LICENSE file in order to clarify
>> that commons-fileupload ships the javax.mail external classes;
>
>
> This should not be done in the LICENSE file but in the NOTICE file.
>
> Nevertheless, I don't think we can do that at all in this case. The classes
> are subject to either GPL or CDDL license. We *cannot* ship anything
> subject ot GPL license. so this would imply we should consider we got it
> under
> the terms of CDDL license. Looking at
> <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories>,
> we must "appropriately label" these parts, and they must be "For small
> amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in
> source form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway
> (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), this action is
> sufficient." Here, the code has been modified, so I'm not sure we fulfill
> the requirements.
>
> You should ask legal@, and during the time we wait for their advice, you
> should *remove* this code from
> our repository.
>
> best regards,
> Luc
>
>>
>> Please note that, when shading, I relocated the javax.mail classes
>> under o.a.c.fileupload.utils.javax.mail package in order to avoid
>> potential collisions in the classpath with javax.mail.* classes
>> provided by the container where fileupload is deployed.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>

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


Mime
View raw message