On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: > On 4/27/2010 8:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: >> 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... >> > I just discovered something very useful to know. You can delete directories > from a Nexus staging repository after the item has been closed. I've > removed the jaxb-impl from the staging area, and will rollback just the > release of that single item and stage a new vote for just jaxb-impl. This > vote will now be for all of the bundles except for jaxb-impl, which will > allow this to proceed without cancelling the entire vote. > > Rick > > >>> >>>> * jstl -- same question about dual licensing. Also, the jar contains both >>>> LICENSE and LICENSE.txt. I assume LICENSE.txt already existed in the jar?
I'm ok with the rollback of jaxb-impl -- as long as it's clear what people are/have voted for. JSTL has a CDDL license, also. Is it CDDL-only or dual licensed, also? --kevan
