> I am with Erik on "no JARs in CVS". Unless it is a legal issue, I > would certainly like to distribute > all JARs with the distribution.
In the case of most of the licences we'd be likely to consider in this context it is usually perfectly OK to distribute Jars in a distribution because that gives you the opportunity to comply with licence conditions regarding distribution of their licence and other materials. The problem boils down to the fact that some licences, and I know that JavaMail and Activation are cases of this, do allow re-distribution as part of a complete product, but don't allow re-distribution in any other case. Similarly OS licences require that a copy of the licence be distributed along with the binary, and simply placing both in cvs doesn't compel anyone to download or read the licence. As far as OGNL is concerned, from my lurking on the Tapestry lists I'd say that it is pretty clear that there is a close association between the projects, and if you want to continue to have OGNL in cvs I'd get Drew to send a mail to the Tapestry dev list, or the PMC confirming that they are happy for this to happen. FWIW on a previous occasion that this subject came up I got a similar assurance from Mark Mathews regarding the mm.mysql jdbc drivers, he was quite happy with the way we were doing things and this seemed to be acceptable. Leastways no-one here complained. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
