geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat
Date Fri, 30 Apr 2010 20:59:37 GMT

On Apr 30, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:

> IIUC then I think we do need to fix this for the following reasons:
> 1) We are releasing these artifacts - even if they are copies of Tomcat artifacts.  The
artifact is being released under the groupID "org.apache.geronimo.ext.tomcat" and it is being
released in source (not just binary) form.

I agree with your general conclusion, but don't necessarily agree with how you got there...
:-). I definitely agree with your statement in 1). 

> 2) In addition to that, I can't see where Tomcat has actually ever released these files
- so it may be that we are "pre-releasing" them rather than "re-releasing" them.  I see a
tag for Tomcat 7.0.0 RC1 but I don't see any artifacts available yet on any repositories.

As far as I can tell, Tomcat never concluded their vote on 7.0.0. I would assume the vote
is cancelled. The issue of these two files was raised in their vote. And the possibility of
removing them was also suggested. More below...


>> On 4/30/10 1:10 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>>> -1 (sorry)
>>> There are some files with invalid license headers:
>>> /util/src/main/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/bcel/classfile/
>>> /util/src/main/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/bcel/classfile/

The license headers are not Apache source license headers. However, this does not necessarily
make them invalid source for an Apache release. The files are not AL2 licensed. So, it makes
sense that they would not contain an Apache source license header. Apache releases can contain
source files that are licensed under a number of licenses that the ASF has determined to be
compatible with AL2. Here is a pretty good overview --

The source files in question were originally CPL Licensed. There's a further comment that
the ASF has elected to distribute the file under an EPL license. I haven't looked to see when
this "relicense" occurred, or if I agree with it. For this discussion it's largely irrelevant.
CPL and EPL are equivalent for the purposes of this discussion.

From the web site, you'll note that both CPL 1.0 and EPL 1.0 are Category B licenses. As such,
these files could not be included in an Apache *source* release (they could be included in
binary form), unless they fall into the following exclusion:

"For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source
form, and for which that source is unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being
specified by a standard), this action is sufficient. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd,
whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification.

Code that is more substantial, more volatile, or not directly consumed at runtime in source
form may only be distributed in binary form."

My guess is that this code is unlikely to change, but probably still does not fall under the
above guidelines (e.g. AFAIK, it is "not directly consumed at runtime in source form"). We
could discuss this if others disagree with this conclusion...

One note: If the license for these files were instead BSD or any other Category A license,
they would be fine for an Apache release...


View raw message