Yep, after recent discussions about this on the Geronimo lists, we'll be updating the text in the OpenJPA licenses for our next set of release artifacts.
-Donald On 4/27/10 5:43 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: > 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 >
