struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rahul Akolkar" <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: picocontainer support?
Date Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:57:39 GMT
On 10/31/06, Don Brown <mrdon@twdata.org> wrote:
> So...it should be resubmitted without copyright headers, which have been
> moved to the NOTICE file?
<snip/>

If the license headers were previously unclear (per your comments
below, I'm not aware of the specifics of this case), then having the
copyright owner(s) resubmit in line with current ASF header policy (if
they're so inclined) is a good thing IMO. Unless its to be treated as
third party works, which still needs compatible licensing.


>  The other question is who exactly is the
> copyright owner?  The headers say the NanoContainer Organization, but is
> that really a legal entity?
>
<snap/>

The original author(s) should know (could be any combination of these
authors, employers and affiliations at the time of producing the
works, based on agreements in place at the time).

-Rahul


> Don
>
> Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > On 10/31/06, Don Brown <mrdon@twdata.org> wrote:
> >> Well, to get it through the Incubator, we simply removed any code who's
> >> copyright couldn't be transfered to the ASF.  However, it is my
> >> understanding that an ASF project can include code with another
> >> organizations' copyright and license, as long as we put the license in
> >> the NOTICE.txt file or something like that.  If that's the case, we
> >> could probably just bring it back as is.
> >>
> >> Anyone know the exact policy of code with another copyright and license
> >> on it?
> >>
> > <snip/>
> >
> > Depends [1] whether the works are directly submitted to the ASF or
> > third-party works. It appears this might be the former, if this is
> > (re)submitted at this time by the original author(s).
> >
> > -Rahul
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> >
> >
> >
> >> Don
> >>
> >> Konstantin Priblouda wrote:
> >> > --- Don Brown <mrdon@twdata.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I believe the Pico stuff had to be pulled out due to
> >> >> unclear license
> >> >> headers in an effort to get the WebWork code through
> >> >> the Apache
> >> >> Incubator.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, what should be there  in the headers then?
> >> > As pico commiter I'm open to negotiations ;)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> That said, I'd be very open to a pico
> >> >> container plugin,
> >> >> similar to the Plexus one.  If you create a patch,
> >> >> I'll apply it :)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Basically it the same stuff that was in WW  (for now)
> >> > - which was moved to WW codebase from pico/nano so it
> >> > could be maintained where it belongs.
> >> > ( it's better to have nanocontainer compile time
> >> > dependency in WW/S2 as other way )
> >> >
> >> > regards,
> >> >
> >> > ----[ Konstantin Pribluda http://www.pribluda.de ]----------------
> >> > Still using XDoclet 1.x?  XDoclet 2 is released and of production
> >> quality.
> >> > check it out: http://xdoclet.codehaus.org
> >> >
> >> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org


Mime
View raw message