Some clarifications: Hi Roy,
(1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description of the licensing of that jar. We do not attempt to relicense anything. No shared release process is involved for any third-party jar we redistribute. The actual text we include is typically something like this: "This product includes a jaxb-impl.jar. License: Dual license consisting of the CDDL v1.0 and GPL v2 (https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html) Jar included under terms of CDDL v1.0 license." (2) The purpose for including the above is to clarify the terms under which we believe that we are able to redistribute those jars. Therefore I don't think Sebb's request is unreasonable. If you believe that this information is in the wrong place, then please let us know where it should go. As I've said before, we're not doing things any differently than most other Apache projects. Please clarify your recommendations. Thanks, Karl On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Roy T. Fielding <field...@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Karl Wright wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 26 March 2012 02:38, Shinichiro Abe <shinichiro.ab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hello Incubator IPMC, >>>> >>>> Please vote on whether or not to release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0. >>>> This RC has passed our podling vote and awaits your inspection. >>>> You can find the artifact at >>>> http://people.apache.org/~shinichiro/apache-manifoldcf-0.5-incubating-RC0/, >>>> or >>>> in svn at >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/lcf/tags/release-0.5-incubating-RC0/. >>> >>> The NOTICE file says: >>> Apache ManifoldCF >>> Copyright 2010-2011 The Apache Software Foundation >>> >>> The LICENSE file includes references to lots of jars that are dual >>> licensed under CDDL v1.0 and GPL v2. >>> However, there is no indication which license has been chosen by the >>> project. >>> >>> I think this is a blocker. > > A project does not choose a license. The license is provided by the copyright > owner. We do not change that license, nor do we reduce the number of the > available licenses to choose from, for downstream recipients. Therefore, > it doesn't make any sense to indicate which one is "chosen". > > In any case, the indicated artifacts are only included in binary packages. > We don't release binaries, so none of these licenses belong in our source > product's LICENSE file. We need to be clear that the source code package > does not include these dependencies. They only exist in binary distributions. > > If the project constructs binary distributions via a shared process, then > the LICENSE/NOTICE files for those distribution packages need to be > constructed > as well --- either by appending a separate file (that contains just the > licenses/notices that are added for the binary package) or by maintaining a > separate LICENSE/NOTICE set for the binary package. > > ....Roy > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
