On 22/02/12 13:49, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
Stanbol is using freemarker as well. To satisfy the license condition
I think the notice file must contain an acknowledgement in the notice
file and the license in the license file.
Reto
Reto -
That's useful to know. Do you happen to know if the license has been
checked with legal?
I couldn't find anything but a few projects mention FreeMarker (haven't
had a chance to see if they redistribute, recombine or use by
reference-from-POM).
While they explain it's a "BSD-style license", there are novel clauses
Dave has explained how he uses Velocity so I'll have a go with just
using the engine. It might be quicker!
Andy
Also:
http://freemarker.624813.n4.nabble.com/License-should-change-in-2-4-td3511551.html
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Andy Seaborne<[email protected]> wrote:
On 22/02/12 12:59, Benson Margulies wrote:
The 4-clause BSD license does not seem to appear on
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html at all. So I think you need
to go to legal.
Thanks - and it's not 4 clause BSD in the usual sense. It's their license,
it is vaguely BSD as they claim but it's a different 4 clauses.
I confess that I don't understand the problem with JSP pages in the
first place. All the pieces you need are either Apache or Eclipse in
my experience.
Jetty uses Glassfish to get it's JSP code and, eventually, CDDL (?). And you
end up shipping ecj. That said, the whole Jasper trail is quite confusing.
The licensing needs tracking down because it's redistribution, not just use
of.
It may be possible to pick out of the Tomcat code, but the packaging seemed
to lead me to Tomcat specific code eventually. Switching wholesale to
embedded Tomcat is possible, but quite a lot larger than embedded Jetty
(extra 3-4Mbytes in 15M).
But I'm not a fan of JSPs anyway so this is an opportunity to not have them
at all.
Andy
