geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: More to be added to licenses file for 1.1.1 ?
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:58:48 GMT
Sorry for the slow response.. comments inline.
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> 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
Agree.
>>> 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.
Agree.
>>> 3) Insure NOTICE files are included in our jar files (currently only 
>>> LICENSE files are there)
Agree.
>>> 4) Do we need to add LICENSE/NOTICE files in our generated CARs?
Any artifact we publish should have a LICENSE/NOTICE file in it.
>>> 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?
I think we should aim to have LICENSE and NOTICE files specific to each 
jar.  What I am not sure of is what licenses need to be included.  See 
my related post 
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=115335093425013&w=2
>>
>> To support #5, I hope we don't need some kind of maven magic.
>
> I think 1,2,3 are must do's. I think we can ignore 4. There are some 
> CAR "files" in ibiblio -- http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/geronimo/cars/ 
> However, I'm not sure why they are there... They are all "1.0" and 
> dated December 22nd. Should we have them removed? To my knowledge, we 
> don't build or distribute CAR files in 1.1 (we do have ".car" 
> directories in our repository, but IMO that's no different from any 
> other directory name we might have...)
>
> Regarding 5, I think the right thing to do is have a global LICENSE 
> and NOTICE file in the base of our distributions. We currently have 
> this. Each of our jar files should have LICENSE and NOTICE files 
> specific to each jar. I don't think that this is hard to do. Am I 
> wrong? They all need standard ASL license and notice files. util needs 
> to include bouncy castle info. Are there other geronimo generated jars 
> with any licensing requirements beyond ASL 2?
I think many modules would need to include licenses for third party 
libraries as their licenses say "use of". I also discussed this in the 
related post link above.  We may need to ask legal about this.

John
>
> --kevan
>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message