On Apr 18, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
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.
IIUC the recommended route is to move these copyright notices to the
NOTICE file. However someone from IBM has to do it. I'm from IBM but
right now I wouldn't be comfortable removing them without input from
at least one author or IBM legal. I'll ask my boss and see what
happens.
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?
yes, and I think we can do that without any legal arguments from anyone.
thanks
david jencks
Regards,
Ate
Carsten
