tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Tomcat 7.0.0 based on Tomcat 7.0.0 RC1
Date Sat, 01 May 2010 21:08:35 GMT

On May 1, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:

> Thanks for the review. My bad. I saw we are using EPL for the JDT
> compiler and assumed we'd be fine for this to. I'll see what I can do to
> work around it or get the license changed.

No problem. The issue seems to have originated in BCEL...

David Jencks chased down some of the history...

On Apr 30, 2010, at 5:40 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> 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.

I work for IBM and as IBM seems to be the original copyright holder, maybe can get a relicensed
version of the files contributed. Once we track down the history of the file, will see what
can be done...


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message