geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: More to be added to licenses file for 1.1.1 ?
Date Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:43:51 GMT
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:53 AM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> Whilst testing the geronimo eclipse plugin, eclipse prompted me to 
>> acknowledge the Sun license at 
>> http://developers.sun.com/license/berkeley_license.html when caching 
>> the j2ee schema files (e.g. 
>> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/ejb-jar_2_1.xsd ).
>>
>> This made me wonder whether this license has been included for 
>> Geronimo (since we redistribute schema files) and it appears the 
>> LICENSE.txt file in 1.1 doesn't contain it.
>>
>> I'll add a JIRA for 1.1.1 if there aren't any objections.
>>
>> Can anyone think of any other licenses or notices we may have 
>> overlooked?
>
> Yes. Would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
>
> 1) Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files for branches/1.1/modules/util 
> (currently they are only Bouncy Castle -- I believe that we have ASL 
> code in there, also).
I think we should do it
> 2) Do we need to add Bouncy Castle to our "global" LICENSE and NOTICE 
> files (i.e. branches/1.1/modules/scripts/src/resources/) ? I think yes.
> 3) Insure NOTICE files are included in our jar files (currently only 
> LICENSE files are there)
> 4) Do we need to add LICENSE/NOTICE files in our generated CARs?
> 5) Can the "global" LICENSE and NOTICE files be used in all our 
> generated artifacts (distributions, jars, cars)? Or do we need global 
> files and specific license/notice files for generated module jars and 
> car files?
>
> --kevan
2-4 should be run by legal, no?

To support #5, I hope we don't need some kind of maven magic.


Regards,
Alan

Mime
View raw message