On 27 April 2010 15:51, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: > >> On 27 April 2010 14:42, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Jeremy, >>> I realized that I failed to review a few things. Can you give me a few >>> hours? >> >> sure, I was hoping to get 3 IPMC binding +1s before calling the vote. >> We have 2 - Guillaume and you at the moment and Dims has just told me >> he'll ping me back later today. > > So reviewing a Geronimo release (which had this same issue) made me come back > and take a look at Aries. > > For dual license files like: > jpa-0.1-incubating/jpa-container/src/main/resources/org/apache/aries/jpa/container/parsing/impl/persistence.xsd.rsrc > > I believe we should be including both licenses (as explained in the header of > the files). We are currently only including the CDDL license (this may have > been my mistake -- in saying the LICENSE information in the RC1 jar file was > correct...). I think we should be including the full license text from > https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html (i.e. both licenses), > then choosing the CDDL license in the NOTICE file. > > If we were only including the CDDL license in the RC1 jar file, then I should > have caught this last time... Apologies. > > If others agree, afraid we'll need to update...
Is there a precedent for this? The recent 2.0.0 OpenJPA binary and source zip have a LICENSE.txt with just the CDDL in it, no GPL license text. Has this been discussed on a list somewhere - I couldn't see anything recently on legal-discuss@ - it seems there is some inconsistency. Thanks, Jeremy > > --kevan
