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: [VOTE] Release Geronimo Customized Tomcat
Date Sat, 01 May 2010 05:54:04 GMT
After investigating the files in question there is no doubt in my mind that we have to cancel
the vote.  If someone from BCEL can demonstrate that they should be in apache svn, with an
apache license, then we could proceed.

We could also look into replacing the tomcat code with xbean-finder.  IIUC it is used for
annotation scanning, so maybe we could use our BundleAnnotationFinder.

thanks
david jencks

On Apr 30, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Ivan wrote:

> Thanks for checking it, usually, I "hate" those license related issues ;-) Just find
that Kevan has post a message in Tomcat community, so depending on the result there, we could
decide whether we would continue or cancel this vote. 
> 
> 2010/5/1 David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
> 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?
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bcel/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/bcel/classfile/EnclosingMethod.java
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bcel/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/bcel/classfile/LocalVariableTypeTable.java
> 
> 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...
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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/EnclosingMethod.java
>>>>> 
>>>>> /util/src/main/java/org/apache/tomcat/util/bcel/classfile/LocalVariableTypeTable.java
>> 
>> 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 -- http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>> 
>> 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...
>> 
>> --kevan
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ivan


Mime
View raw message