Alex Karasulu wrote: > On Feb 15, 2008 4:43 PM, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It does not matter what Tapestry ships with. I'd like to think the Tapestry > PMC is doing the proper diligence before releases. Regardless we cannot > base our decisions on the interpretation of Apache policy by other > committees. > > Howard Ship, I know had some outstanding questions about this and it's what > had triggered several discussions on third party licensing which the board > is now considering. > > For the record, I want this M1 out more than anybody: so I don't want any > red lights in our way. I just started using the JMX feature too and I cannot > foresee living without it now. > > >> Javassist can be redistributed under the MPL _or_ under the LGPL. It >> doesn't have to be distributed under BOTH, see >> http://labs.jboss.com/javassist/ >> >> I don't see this as a problem unless the board is deciding on whether or >> not the MPL 1.1 is ok in spite of all the precedence. > > > I don't think this page is set as official Apache policy: > > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html > > I don't know if the work Cliff was doing ever got ratified. We can check > and see but MPL from this guide is OK. So if this is official then we have > no problem. BTW here's what the javassist pom says about the license: > > <name>MPL 1.1</name> <url> > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/jboss/javassist/License.html?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/html > </url> > <comments> > Dual-license; LGPL if downloaded as part of JBoss, MPL if downloaded > separately. > </comments> > > Also what's the license on OGNL?. I have not been able to find it.
The precedence in the apache-legal-discuss mailing list seams to strongly suggest that using the MPL for binary only distribution is fine. I don't see anything inhibiting us from using Javassist as we can redistribute under the MPL. The OGNL license is here, http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mina/trunk/LICENSE.ognl.txt and it's an MPL derivative. -Mike > Alex Karasulu wrote: >>> FYI the board met a couple days ago I think to discuss this specific >> issue >>> of third party licenses. We should check and see what they concluded on >>> this 3rd party licensing matter. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>>> Mike, thanks for your diligence on this release. >>>> >>>> However I might have some bad news tho: I hope I'm wrong. I just now >> took >>>> a cursory look at the dependencies. It seems we have some MPL/LGPL >>>> dependencies unfortunately :(. Specifically the ognl integration >> module >>>> depends on ognl and that depends on javassist which is LGPL. I hope >> I'm >>>> wrong since I have not had time to completely verify. Could someone >> double >>>> check for me. I hope there's something we can do about it. >>>> >>>> Also let's make sure we do a good audit of the dependencies along with >> RAT >>>> runs. We may want to use the maven RAT plugin to automatically do this >> for >>>> us. >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The vote has been closed and hare are the results. >>>>> >>>>> Binding +1s (7): >>>>> >>>>> Niklas Gustavsson >>>>> Mike Heath >>>>> Alex Karasulu >>>>> Emmanuel Lécharny >>>>> Trustin Lee >>>>> Niklas Therning >>>>> Julien Vermillard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Non-binding +1s (8): >>>>> >>>>> Maarten Bosteels >>>>> Frédéric Brégier >>>>> Jeff Genender >>>>> Brenno Hayden >>>>> Edouard De Oliveira >>>>> José Henrique de Oliveira Varanda >>>>> Cameron Taggart >>>>> Mark Webb >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I will try to get this release out this weekend. >>>>> >>>>> -Mike >>>>> >>>>> Mike Heath wrote: >>>>>> Hello Community, >>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like Maarten has resolved DIRMINA-513. I don't see any >>>>> reason >>>>>> to hold up a 2.0-M1 release. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a multitude of changes in MINA 2.0-M1, too many to >> enumerate >>>>>> in a single email. A laundry list of changes going into this release >>>>>> can be found here >>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRMINA?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel >>>>>> This release should not be considered final nor entirely stable. It >>>>> is >>>>>> a release so that developers using MINA know what to expect in 2.0 as >>>>>> well as help us to find bugs and deficiencies in the API. >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ]: +1, Release MINA 2.0-M1 >>>>>> [ ]: 0, Abstain >>>>>> [ ]: -1, Don't release MINA 2.0-M1 >>>>>> >>>>>> -Mike >>>>>> >> >
