On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <[email protected]>wrote:
> Justin, > > I'm not really aware regarding licenses stuffs but from my point of view > and tell me if I'm wrong, because we don't store the source code of this > lib and because we don't provide to users an already built version of the > mavenizer and because this lib is only declare as an external pointer in a > xml file, only the user, when he builds the mavenizer, uses this lib, not > us, then I wonder, how should we care about the license ? > > -Fred > > The scenario you describe "might" be permitted according to Apache's Third-party Licensing Policy [1] In any case, we need to explicitly alert the user of the appropriate license and that it is not associated with Apache. I highly recommend that you read the entire policy to make sure that there are no scenarios under which we violate any of these policies. Thanks, Om http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options-optional > -----Message d'origine----- From: Justin Mclean > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:52 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [jira] [Resolved] (FLEX-33245) Apache Flex Mavenizer needs a > review of the licenses used > > > Hi, > > I just have to point out that GPL is not a compatible license with Apache. > > http://www.apache.org/**licenses/GPL-compatibility.**html<http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html> > http://www.apache.org/legal/**3party.html<http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html> > > CDDL is a category B license so that may be OK, however GPL is an excluded > license. > > Can you give some more info on how jersey is used. > > I assume this is the license in question: > http://jersey.java.net/CDDL+**GPL.html<http://jersey.java.net/CDDL+GPL.html> > > Thanks, > Justin >
