On 11/19/12 3 :27PM, "Greg Reddin" <gred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Carol Frampton <cfram...@adobe.com> >wrote: > >> In our fork of the batik library, one of the files has an Apache 1.1 >> license which is being flagged by RAT. Do I just upgrade that to an >>Apache >> 2 license or do I leave the license as-is and exclude it from RAT? > > >I don't know the answer to that. I'm hoping Dave or Bertrand knows. > >However, it does raise another question. I'd assume the more recent >versions of Batik are licensed ALv2. Could we: > >1) Upgrade our fork to be based on a more recent Batik version... or >2) Preferably, work with the Batik community to get our customizations >integrated in some way? Actually I don't think I need to know the answer to this question after all but I am still curious what the answer is. I did fork batik 1.7 which is the latest version. Alex and I have discussed a few times whether we should try to do #2 but the new compiler doesn't use batik so I don't think it is worth the effort. Further complicating this is that one of the file we changed, org.w3c.css.sac.LexicalUnit, is no longer in batik 1.7. I think the file may belong to the Apache XML commons project so we'd have to work with two projects. We have a file in our compiler which is based on a batik file that I see now has an updated Apache 2 header so I think I can update the copyright in our file as well and then this issue goes away. I don't understand why the batik src kit has jar files in it and we have to download them as part of our build to build batik but that is another issue. Carol
