On Apr 27, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > On 4/26/2010 10:32 PM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> Nice stuff Rick. This obviously took some time to prepare the licensing >> information properly. Thanks! >> >> One minor comment -- I notice that some of the new files do not have >> svn:eol-style=native (i.e. LICENSE.vm). Probably because we don't define the >> file type in our recommended client configuration -- >> https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html. We >> might want to consider updating... >> >> A few questions: >> >> * jaxb-impl-2.2_1 -- is this CDDL licensed? or dual-licensed (CDDL/GPL)? >> > The only license I've found for this is CDDL.
This URL seems to indicate that JAXB is dual licensed -- https://jaxb.dev.java.net/2.2/ If so, we should include the full license text and make sure we indicate our license choice (CDDL). Some versions of the dual license include instructions on how to apply to a work. Don't see any reason not to use the same wording... > >> * jstl -- same question about dual licensing. Also, the jar contains both >> LICENSE and LICENSE.txt. I assume LICENSE.txt already existed in the jar? >> > Yes, the LICENSE.txt file came from the original jar. Thanks. --kevan
