On 29 April 2010 17:11, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: > >> 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. > > Well, you could remove the CDDL license from LICENSE and add an entry in > LICENSE that points to the LICENSE.txt (i.e. the CDDL+GPL license file).
I was thinking keep the CDDL license in LICENSE, and not add the GPL portion. The LICENSE would then represent the licensing of the files in the zip - as we have elected to license the two schema files as CDDL. > Something like 'licenses/GLASSFISH-LICENSE.txt'. Some projects follow similar > schemes -- one AL2 LICENSE file with multiple licenses in a 'license' > subdirectory. This would be to satisfy the text in the header in the schema file which says "... and include the License file at glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt." ... so this specifically says to include the License file rather than append the License file to the one we have. >My personal preference (Geronimo consumes a lot of artifacts) is to have all >licensing information within the LICENSE file. It's much easier for consumers >of your artifacts to review/follow... Which would normally be mine too, but I was trying to avoid confusing consumers who review the LICENSE file and on doing so would see 'GPL' even though none of the artifacts in the zip are licensed under the GPL. AIUI, while the schema files were originally CDDL+GPL, because we've elected to use the CDDL license, any consumers of our package cannot subsequently relicense them as GPL. I think both options have merits and pitfalls and since I want to get on and create a new RC and the most agreed on approach is to put the full CDDL+GPL in the LICENSE file, then that is what I'll do. Thanks though, I do appreciate the discussion. > > --kevan > >
