commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maison...@free.fr>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (MATH-375) Elementary functions in JDK are slower than necessary and not as accurate as they could be.
Date Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:42:55 GMT
Le 09/06/2010 20:19, sebb a écrit :
> On 09/06/2010, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>> Le 09/06/2010 18:59, William Rossi (JIRA) a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>  >     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-375?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12877132#action_12877132
]
>>  >
>>  > William Rossi commented on MATH-375:
>>  > ------------------------------------
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > I'm not as well versed in these copyright issues I as I should be, but my
>>  > understanding is that as the copyright holder of the dfp library, I could
>>  > dual license it.  In any event, dfp is not required by the software, its
>>  > only used in the supporting test cases.
>>
>>
>> If it is used in the test cases, it should be included in the source
>>  release (which are what Apache promotes) and hence should be published
>>  with an Apache compatible license like Apache Software License V2 (of
>>  course) but also BSD for example.
>>
> 
> We don't include binaries (jars) in source releases.
> Commons uses Maven, so normally jars are resolved from the Central repo.
> 
> Apache releases can have optional dependencies on LGPL.
> 
> So if there were other tests, then IMO the tests that depend on dfp
> could be made optional.
> 
> But ideally the jar should be licensed using one of the "category A or
> B" licenses in
> 
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> 
>>  >
>>  > Which also why I whould be hesitant to assign copyright to ASF, if I were
>>  > to do that and ASF decides not to persue the project then I'm left with
>>  > nothing.  By maintaining the copyright, I can issue licenses to other
>>  > parties as I see fit.
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>  >
>>  > The ASF software grant agreement doesn't ask me to assign copyright to
>>  > ASF, but to mearly agree to specific license terms.
>>
>>
>> You are right, the foundation does not ask for the copyright, it only
>>  requires a license allowing it to redistribute the code under the terms
>>  of the Apache Software License V2. The copyright still belongs to you.
>>
>>  One minor glitch is that in the commons projects, we prefer not to have
>>  @author javadoc tags in the source but rather the names placed in the
>>  contributor section of the pom file (and hence publickly acknowledged in
>>  an automatically built page on the component site) and possibly in the
>>  NOTICE.txt file.
> 
> Huh?
> This does not apply to the dfp code - it is a binary library dependency.

I didn't have a look yet, thought it was another java source package.

Luc


Mime
View raw message