flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Om <bigosma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] [Resolved] (FLEX-33245) Apache Flex Mavenizer needs a review of the licenses used
Date Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:23:26 GMT
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoublefx@hotmail.com>wrote:

> Justin,
> I'm not really aware regarding licenses stuffs but from my point of view
> and tell me if I'm wrong, because we don't store the source code of this
> lib and because we don't provide to users an already built version of the
> mavenizer and because this lib is only declare as an external pointer in a
> xml file, only the user, when he builds the mavenizer, uses this lib, not
> us, then I wonder, how should we care about the license ?
> -Fred
The scenario you describe "might" be permitted according to Apache's
Third-party Licensing Policy [1]  In any case, we need to  explicitly alert
the user of the appropriate license and that it is not associated with

I highly recommend that you read the entire policy to make sure that there
are no scenarios under which we violate any of these policies.



> -----Message d'origine----- From: Justin Mclean
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:52 PM
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [jira] [Resolved] (FLEX-33245) Apache Flex Mavenizer needs a
> review of the licenses used
> Hi,
> I just have to point out that GPL is not a compatible license with Apache.
> http://www.apache.org/**licenses/GPL-compatibility.**html<http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/**3party.html<http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>
> CDDL is a category B license so that may be OK, however GPL is an excluded
> license.
> Can you give some more info on how jersey is used.
> I assume this is the license in question:
> http://jersey.java.net/CDDL+**GPL.html<http://jersey.java.net/CDDL+GPL.html>
> Thanks,
> Justin

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message