Le dimanche 09 août 2009 23:53:41, Matthew Johnson a écrit : > On Sun Aug 09 23:02, Damien Raude-Morvan wrote: > > > I've reviewed the package and it looks clean, but I have one question. > > > Which bit is licenced under the apache-derived licence? I can only find > > > BSD-licenced files. > > > > OpenSymfony Licence (Apache derived one) is promoted by upstream as > > official OGNL project licence [1]. But, as you, every source file I can > > found under src/ in tarball were licenced under classical BSD licence. [...] > I don't like: > > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called > * "OpenSymphony" > * or "OGNL", nor may "OpenSymphony" or "OGNL" appear in their > * name, without prior written permission of the OpenSymphony > * Group. > > since we are, arguably, distributing a derivative work and if we ever > patch it then we certainly are. I've CC'd debian-legal to get slightly > wider comments on the matter.
I haven't carrefully reviewed this licence because I'm sure it was an cut&paste of Apache Licence 1.1 with s/Apache Software Foundation/OpenSymfony & OGNL/. And I know we already package many software under Apache 1.1 (at least 35 in main). I've submitted a bug upstream to, at least, clarify applicable licence for source code between BSD 3-Clause and this OpenSymfony Licence : http://jira.opensymphony.com/browse/OGNL-156 Cheers, -- Damien Raude-Morvan / www.drazzib.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
