On Apr 29, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: > 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.
I don't think that's correct. I do think you could add a note to the LICENSE file (preceding the CDDL+GPL license) that states we are choosing the CDDL license. > >> 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. IMO, the intent of "include the license file" is to include the content of the license file. > >> 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. You are correct. IIUC, consumers of the Aries' package cannot reapply the GPL portion of the CDDL+GPL dual license. > > 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. No problem. And thanks for working though these issues! First releases for a project are typically difficult. And as we've discovered, there are inconsistencies within the ASF -- I've found licensing to be a process of refinement... If avoiding confusion is really a goal, then the solution is to stop including CDDL+GPL dual licensed artifacts. Changing the licensing information to avoid "confusion" isn't the answer. --kevan
