geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Server Respository plugin for Geronimo 2.1+ - RC2
Date Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:59:10 GMT
Kevan Miller wrote:
> 
> On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> 
>> Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> Start of thread to discuss any concerns/issues/questions with the 
>>> vote for the Server Repository plugin for Geronimo 2.1+
>>> Joe
>>
>> Jarek posted an concern in his vote on this plugin:
>> Jarek Gawor wrote:
>> > +1
>> >
>> > One minor comment: when installing the plugin using the admin console
>> > it shows the license as:
>> >
>> > License:      The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 (Proprietary)
>> >
>> > and should be :
>> >
>> > License:      The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 (Open Source)
>>
>> As you can see, he still voted +1.  However, this concerns me.  I 
>> guess there must be something that I need to set for the plugin in the 
>> pom.xml to indicate that this is apache licensed.  The generated 
>> geronimo-plugin.xml includes  <license osi-approved="false">The Apache 
>> Software License, Version 2.0</license> rather than indicating true 
>> for osi-approved.
>>
>> So ... what to do with the vote?  I really don't like the erroneous 
>> license message.  I'm leaning toward cancelling the vote again to get 
>> this fixed.  What are your opinions?
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see this fixed.  How/where are we picking up the 
> osi-approved value?
> 
> --kevan

It looks like I just needed to include <osiApproved>true</osiApproved> 
in the plugin configuration section of the pom for this plugin.  I 
omitted it so it must default to false.

As Lin pointed out, I can update this in the plugin catalog (and I just 
did in my staging repo) ... which results in the correct license info 
being displayed when installing the plugin from the console.  However, 
we usually depend upon these catalog being generated with only minor 
edits.  I guess we could consider this another minor edit but it would 
be nice to have it generate correctly.

If you attempt to install from my staging repo now (with the edit) it 
will indicate it is open source licensed.

Joe




Mime
View raw message