On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote: > Some clarifications: > > Hi Roy, > > (1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all > non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description > of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense > anything. No shared release process is involved for any third-party > jar we redistribute. The actual text we include is typically > something like this: > > "This product includes a jaxb-impl.jar. > License: Dual license consisting of the CDDL v1.0 and GPL v2 > (https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html) > Jar included under terms of CDDL v1.0 license." > > (2) The purpose for including the above is to clarify the terms under > which we believe that we are able to redistribute those jars. > Therefore I don't think Sebb's request is unreasonable. If you > believe that this information is in the wrong place, then please let > us know where it should go. As I've said before, we're not doing > things any differently than most other Apache projects. > > Please clarify your recommendations.
I had two separate comments, neither of which are intended as a criticism of ManifoldCF. First, Sebb's request is reasonable; it just happens to be wrong. No Apache project needs to say "Jar included under terms of CDDL v1.0 license." A project might choose to say that, but it is nonsense, and certainly isn't a requirement of incubation. Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE. We don't release third party binaries, period. Hence, the specific examples that you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE. They might be valid for the license file included within a binary package, but please note that such a license file will be different from the LICENSE that is provided in the source distribution, and is not something we would be voting upon (because no PMC can be expected to verify the validity of those binaries). Hence, what you need to do is split the LICENSE in two -- one for source packages (that do not include dependent jars) and one for binary packages (that do include the dependent jars). Hopefully, Jukka can step in and document how the LICENSE and NOTICE files are crafted for Jackrabbit and Sling, since those projects have the exact same issues regarding third-party libraries that are only included in the binary packages. ....Roy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
