Mark Thomas changed the license in rev 934219 on april 14 2010.  That change and rev 934220 seem to indicate that the tomcat community thinks including EPL source in apache svn and releases is fine.  The tomcat copies are modified from the bcel "originals" including:

- changing the package name  (rev 887296, 887302) (this could be done with maven-shade-plugin from binaries, were they to have been aleady released which AFAICT they aren't)
- removing unused methods  ( rev 887610, 887613)

These seem to me to be functional modifications and so decidedly outside the acceptable uses of CPL/EPL licensed source in apache.
These files aren't in the latest bcel tag.  As seen below the bcel source has the CPL license.  BCEL needs to fix this, right?

I'm having some trouble interpreting bcel svn history but I think these were added in rev 411580 as part of a GSOC project.

david jencks

On Apr 30, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:

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:


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...