Just found another link for it ( http://forge.ow2.org/projects/asm) - it has a BSD license
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>... >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/esme/trunk/THIRD-PARTY.txt >>>> >>>> Format looks ok but I don't think we can release with dependencies >>>> that have unknown licenses. >>>> Those should be tracked down or eliminated, IMO. >>> >>> But I added in the file "We've tracked down the licenses for these >>> dependents accordingly: " with the details lower in the file. Do we >>> need more than that? >> >> Ah sorry, didn't realize the last paragraph refers to those licenses, my bad. >> >> I have reformatted that file to make things clearer, and I think asm >> and cglib still need clarification, if I read your mvn site output >> correctly. > > Thanks for the tip about the other two - I didn't realize that they > were also unknown > > cglib - Apache 2.0 license - > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/cglib/cglib/2.2 > > asm - tracked from > http://scala-tools.org/mvnsites-snapshots/maven-scala-plugin/dependencies.html > to http://asm.ow2.org/license.html > But I'm not sure where this OK or not - it is not an Apache 2.0 > license. Could you check this. ASM appears to be included in a > variety of other OSS apps, so I'm hoping that will be usable. > >> >> -Bertrand >> >
