I've raised it on legal-discuss. Has the following option been considered to satisfy the "... and include the License file at glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt.":
Include that LICENSE.txt file separately from the project's LICENSE file in a directory called glassfish/bootstrap/legal directory within the jar/zip AND include the CDDL only in the project's LICENSE file located at the root of the zip. Cheers, Jeremy On 28 April 2010 14:41, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >
