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. > > 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). 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-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
