incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:05:05 GMT
On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote:

> Some clarifications:
> 
> Hi Roy,
> 
> (1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all
> non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description
> of the licensing of that jar.  We do not attempt to relicense
> anything.  No shared release process is involved for any third-party
> jar we redistribute.  The actual text we include is typically
> something like this:
> 
> "This product includes a jaxb-impl.jar.
> License: Dual license consisting of the CDDL v1.0 and GPL v2
> (https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html)
> Jar included under terms of CDDL v1.0 license."
> 
> (2) The purpose for including the above is to clarify the terms under
> which we believe that we are able to redistribute those jars.
> Therefore I don't think Sebb's request is unreasonable.  If you
> believe that this information is in the wrong place, then please let
> us know where it should go.  As I've said before, we're not doing
> things any differently than most other Apache projects.
> 
> Please clarify your recommendations.

I had two separate comments, neither of which are intended as
a criticism of ManifoldCF.

First, Sebb's request is reasonable; it just happens to be wrong.
No Apache project needs to say "Jar included under terms of
CDDL v1.0 license."  A project might choose to say that, but
it is nonsense, and certainly isn't a requirement of incubation.

Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE.  We don't release
third party binaries, period.  Hence, the specific examples that
you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE.  They might be
valid for the license file included within a binary package, but
please note that such a license file will be different from the
LICENSE that is provided in the source distribution, and is not
something we would be voting upon (because no PMC can be expected
to verify the validity of those binaries).  Hence, what you need
to do is split the LICENSE in two -- one for source packages (that
do not include dependent jars) and one for binary packages (that
do include the dependent jars).

Hopefully, Jukka can step in and document how the LICENSE and
NOTICE files are crafted for Jackrabbit and Sling, since those
projects have the exact same issues regarding third-party libraries
that are only included in the binary packages.

....Roy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message