Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
I've no real strong opinion about this atm; it would be nice if we are
able to release our own portlet api to fix stuff if required; on the
other hand it would be nice if we could just use the official jars.
Well, AFAIK we can use the official jars if we want to, but the problem is 
where to get them from during a (maven) build.
Although both the portlet-api 1.0 and 2.0 jars are now available from the central repository (the 2.0 pushed out by myself), I now think that actually was a mistake... If we can/should (request to) remove those jars or not is a different subject, but from an ASF POV I think we better opt for switching to using our own spec jars from now on.
So, if you're fine with that, and David Jencks, David Taylor and myself are +1 
and nobody else objects, I think we should just go for it.


But I noticed that the source for the portlet api 2.0 in our svn
contains this disclaimer:

/*
 * NOTE: this source code is based on an early draft version of JSR 286
and not intended for product
 * implementations. This file may change or vanish in the final version
of the JSR 286 specification.
 */

I guess we have to change this anyway, right?
That disclaimer clearly is a leftover from when the JSR 286 was still under 
development.
Yes, I think we should remove/change that now as well.

In addition, there is this license.txt within the source tree containing the 
following:

  � Copyright IBM Corp. 2006, 2007
  All rights reserved.

Should that file remain or maybe should we move that statement to our 
NOTICE.txt instead?

Furthermore, every portlet-api-2.0 source file also contains the "Copyright 2006 IBM 
Corporation." in the header.

Note that none of such copyright statements are found in the portlet-api-1.0 
source, not even from SUN.
On the other hand, the portlet-api-1.0 sources do have the ASF 1.1 license 
header, not the 2.0 license header.
I'm not too familiar with what is required when a new release is put out, but I think if we would do this, those need to be replaced with ASF 2.0 license headers now, right?

Regards,

Ate


Carsten



Reply via email to