Re: License headers v2
that's one of the strangest requirements if you ask me. Why oh why do you want to force that it needs to be a binary inclusion only? Thats very strange for an opensource thing... But rewriting that.. its a file with almost only static finals.. rewriting that means that you pretty much type it over Some files should really not fall under any license but be completely public domain... johan On 11/17/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/17/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ClientProperties is MPL, which should be ok, right? If I understand [1] correctly then no. We must only have binary inclusion. So this actually means that we will have to either use it as a library (include echo as dependency, yeah right), or rewrite it. As far as I have understood. Correct me if I'm wrong. Frank [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
Re: License headers v2
But rewriting that.. its a file with almost only static finals.. rewriting that means that you pretty much type it over What we could do, and what imo would be a bit nicer, is instead of a general bucket of client properties (backed by a map), just implement those properties as actual JavaBean properties. What do you think? Frank, you feel like taking this? Eelco
Re: License headers v2
There is an issue report for it now, so in time if noone has done anything about it I will. But at the moment I'm trying to get this license header fun task done. So anyone please submit patches for WICKET-87 if you feel like it :) Frank On 11/18/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But rewriting that.. its a file with almost only static finals.. rewriting that means that you pretty much type it over What we could do, and what imo would be a bit nicer, is instead of a general bucket of client properties (backed by a map), just implement those properties as actual JavaBean properties. What do you think? Frank, you feel like taking this? Eelco
Re: License headers v2
ClientProperties is MPL, which should be ok, right? Eelco On 11/16/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I was a little too quick placing ASL2 headers in all the .java files in 2.0. When looking trough 1.x I found some thirdparty code. I have therefore looked through all java files which doesn't have a ASL2 header but something else and the following came up: src/main/java/wicket/protocol/http/ClientProperties.java (MPL/GPL/LGPL) src/main/java/wicket/util/concurrent/ConcurrentReaderHashMap.java (SUN) src/main/java/wicket/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java (SUN) src/main/java/wicket/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList.java (SUN) What do we do with these? I'm still not a license expert but the first one sounds dangerous. Upayavira: I have added a notice about some ASL1.1 software in our NOTICE. Does it look ok? http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/wicket/trunk/wicket/NOTICE.txt?revision=475442pathrev=475442 Frank
Re: License headers v2
On 11/17/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ClientProperties is MPL, which should be ok, right? If I understand [1] correctly then no. We must only have binary inclusion. So this actually means that we will have to either use it as a library (include echo as dependency, yeah right), or rewrite it. As far as I have understood. Correct me if I'm wrong. Frank [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
Re: License headers v2
You're right. I was confused with BSD. Damn. Seems like we have to rewrite it then. To the upside, this isn't very difficult. Eelco On 11/17/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/17/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ClientProperties is MPL, which should be ok, right? If I understand [1] correctly then no. We must only have binary inclusion. So this actually means that we will have to either use it as a library (include echo as dependency, yeah right), or rewrite it. As far as I have understood. Correct me if I'm wrong. Frank [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
Re: License headers v2
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-87 On 11/17/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll add an issue and hope someone volunteers :) Frank On 11/17/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. I was confused with BSD. Damn. Seems like we have to rewrite it then. To the upside, this isn't very difficult. Eelco On 11/17/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/17/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ClientProperties is MPL, which should be ok, right? If I understand [1] correctly then no. We must only have binary inclusion. So this actually means that we will have to either use it as a library (include echo as dependency, yeah right), or rewrite it. As far as I have understood. Correct me if I'm wrong. Frank [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
License headers v2
All, I was a little too quick placing ASL2 headers in all the .java files in 2.0. When looking trough 1.x I found some thirdparty code. I have therefore looked through all java files which doesn't have a ASL2 header but something else and the following came up: src/main/java/wicket/protocol/http/ClientProperties.java (MPL/GPL/LGPL) src/main/java/wicket/util/concurrent/ConcurrentReaderHashMap.java (SUN) src/main/java/wicket/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java (SUN) src/main/java/wicket/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList.java (SUN) What do we do with these? I'm still not a license expert but the first one sounds dangerous. Upayavira: I have added a notice about some ASL1.1 software in our NOTICE. Does it look ok? http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/wicket/trunk/wicket/NOTICE.txt?revision=475442pathrev=475442 Frank
Re: License headers v2
On 11/16/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are public domain, taken from Doug Lea's concurrent utils. Sun has adopted these for Java 1.5. So for 1.x they need to be there, 2.0 they could be removed in favor of the JDK provided java.util.concurrent collections. I don't know how public domain needs to be treated, i.e. if/when we can put the Apache license header on it or not. Or perhaps just let it stay and but it in NOTICE.
