geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Geronimo Server 2.1.1 Release
Date Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:09:20 GMT

On Apr 24, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Um, this is really where they belong those, since they are specific  
>> to Geronimo.  But it should be possible to generate the resources w/ 
>> o license details... but probably have to use the new archetype-ng  
>> stuff, which is on my list todo actually...
>
> I agree that this is where they belong.
>
> I'm not sure I understand Dave's issue. If the files were  
> substantially changed to be non-Geronimo specific archetypes, then  
> IMO, there'd have been enough change that they prolly would no  
> longer be covered under our license...

I guess my thinking only applies to the plugin archetype.  Lets say  
someone  writes some gbeans and comes up with a plugin using them that  
doesn't include any apache code.  Suppose they want to license the  
plugin under say lgpl.  With the apache license headers in the  
archetype templates, do they have to include an Apache notice with  
their plugin?

-- compiled plugin: maybe, the archetype has a bunch of hints about  
how to get the car-maven-plugin to generate the geronimo-plugin.xml,  
which goes into the plugin
-- source: yes, the generated pom will have apache license headers in  
it.

Is this desirable?

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> --kevan
>


Mime
View raw message