Ah thanks Kevan and Donald for clarifying things! I was not differentiating schema and source well :-(
Lin On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:10 PM, Lin Sun wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I don't think hiding the schema files are the right thing to do. We >> should try to get the schema files from either geronimo spec or >> openjpa, and see how they solve this prob. I seem to remember that >> apache has special agreement with Sun (without knowing details tho) >> and we could hopefully get the schema files via that special >> agreement. > > I'm not aware of a special agreement with Sun that would provide us with > non-CDDL licensed schema's. Nor is Geronimo able to produce alternatively > licensed schema files (Geronimo does produce alternatively licensed spec jars > -- I assume that this is what you are thinking about). Consuming the CDDL+GPL > licensed schemas as source is fine. We choose the CDDL license. CDDL is a > category B license (an Apache classification system -- > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories). Normally > Category B source code is not acceptable to Apache. However, source files > like the schemas, which aren't expected to be changed by users (they define a > standard, after all) are allowable. > > There may be alternative/better ways of getting the RAT report to pass. You > can check with the RAT community. However, ignoring the schema files seems OK > to me. > > --kevan
