Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.160.173 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=PmXBmKzRNs5Dixxw7xGb2gVaYvGEhynmDXyY1/hJ10O5cj18Q7O2b7G1lcySZ7/4vm
         YD9ttiO9S/vzDHKA2+jT+4avb0abICodIOY3/eqAPiMSxUjyR215r1ctW7pIu+PlJnaz
         WN1sq56Pg21qDvNCOM0mt2fs2qyPImhs+JgaY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Tomcat 7.0.0 based on Tomcat 7.0.0 RC1
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BC6369F.8080803@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:37:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C0F65C36-3F74-48AA-9F1E-36F805BA3958@gmail.com>
References: <4BC59A4E.50002@apache.org>
 <x2p25aac9fc1004141306o4af7b395t2cabe0aaa8e4b113@mail.gmail.com>
 <4BC62614.5070709@apache.org> <4BC6369F.8080803@apache.org>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>


On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:

> On 14/04/2010 21:31, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 14/04/2010 21:06, sebb wrote:
>>> 2 files in BCEL have IBM headers; these headers are presumably OK, =
but
>>> the NOTICE file probably needs to mention IBM. Not sure why the BCEL
>>> source archive does not do so in its NOTICE file. That might be an
>>> error.
>> Hmm. I might be able to strip down what we use from BCEL to get rid =
of
>> those.
>=20
> Easier said than done. I'll add the necessary updates to LICENSE & =
NOTICE.


I'm assuming that this vote has been cancelled. And apologies for =
jumping in so late -- just read this thread (motivated by discussion on =
geronimo dev list).=20

IMO, these files are not valid source files for an Apache release. I see =
the two files in question were/are CPL licensed and you have elected to =
distribute the files under EPL, instead. Either license seems =
problematic. So, I'm not sure why it would matter... Both licenses are =
Category B licenses (according to =
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ). Unless you feel this source =
falls under the Category B exemption (which I don't think they do), they =
should not be included in a release:

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

--kevan=

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