Great, thank you Ken for looking into it.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Ken Wallis <kwal...@rim.com> wrote: > Sorry guys for not getting back to this sooner. You should not need to > have that information called out anywhere, that this code came from the > knowledge base. While it probably would have been best to come as a > contribution from one of us here, the file seems to date back to October > 2010. And since it is functionality that is basically trivial and > uninteresting, we don't need to worry about it. > -- > Ken Wallis > Product Manager BlackBerry WebWorks > > Research In Motion > (905) 629-4746 x14369 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Drew Walters <deedu...@gmail.com> > Reply-To: <callback-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:05:20 -0600 > To: <callback-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Apache License swap for BlackBerry > >>Ken or anyone else from RIM. Still looking for an answer to the >>following license related issue: >> >>- The StringUtils.java [1] file was apparently based on a BlackBerry >>knowledge base article [2] as noted in the file header. Its not clear >>to me whether I need to include information in the LICENSE or NOTICE >>file for this. >> >>[1] >>https://github.com/apache/incubator-cordova-blackberry-webworks/blob/maste >>r/framework/ext/src/org/apache/cordova/util/StringUtils.java >>[2] >>http://www.blackberry.com/knowledgecenterpublic/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/34 >>8583/800332/832062/How_To_-_Implement_a_string_splitter_based_on_a_given_s >>tring_delimiter.html?nodeid=1498848&vernum=0 >> >>On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Drew Walters <deedu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Ken, >>> >>> Is there any update on any license requirements for the BlackBerry >>> knowledge base articles. >>> >>> I've gone ahead and pushed the license changes to apache git. I've >>> left the RIM copyright as it was in the files and for the time being >>> have left a note of reference to the knowledge base article in the >>> source. I can add additional information to the LICENSE and NOTICE >>> file later if necessary. >>> >>> Drew >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Drew Walters <deedu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Responding to both Jukka's and Ken's responses: >>>> >>>>>> - There are a couple of instances in the code (from Playbook >>>>>> implementation) for a copyright of RIM. Has RIM agreed to removal >>>>>> of their copyright or does that need to be maintained in the source? >>>> >>>>> Sounds like a case of >>>>>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party >>>> >>>> Yes, although in this case, several of the files were pre-existing in >>>> PhoneGap. RIM copyright was added to existing files which were >>>>modified >>>> during work done to add Playbook support. All new files submitted and >>>> modified existing files have the same source license header (bsd/mit) >>>>used >>>> in the rest of the source. >>>> >>>>>> - The StringUtils.java [1] file was apparently based on a BlackBerry >>>>>> knowledge base article [2] as noted in the file header. Its not >>>>>>clear to >>>>>> me whether I need to include information in the LICENSE or NOTICE >>>>>>file >>>>>> for >>>>>> this. >>>> >>>>> Do we know the license of that code? If not, it would be good to >>>>> clarify whether it's OK for us to redistribute it. Alternatively I'm >>>>> sure there are plenty of other sources of similar functionality. >>>> >>>> Ken Wallis from RIM is checking on that. >>>> >>>>> Did you already push these changes to the repository on git-wip-us? >>>> >>>> Nope, not yet, in my local sandbox right now. >>>> >>>>> Drew, are the Nitobi and IBM entries being moved to a NOTICE file, or >>>>> removed completely? >>>> >>>> Completely removed for a clean handoff of code to the Apache >>>>foundation. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Drew Walters <deedu...@gmail.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> > - There are a couple of instances in the code (from Playbook >>>>> > implementation) for a copyright of RIM. Has RIM agreed to removal >>>>> > of their copyright or does that need to be maintained in the source? >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like a case of >>>>>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party >>>>> >>>>> > - The StringUtils.java [1] file was apparently based on a BlackBerry >>>>> > knowledge base article [2] as noted in the file header. Its not >>>>>clear >>>>> > to >>>>> > me whether I need to include information in the LICENSE or NOTICE >>>>>file >>>>> > for >>>>> > this. >>>>> >>>>> Do we know the license of that code? If not, it would be good to >>>>> clarify whether it's OK for us to redistribute it. Alternatively I'm >>>>> sure there are plenty of other sources of similar functionality. >>>>> >>>>> > - The sample project provides ant-contrib.jar which is used to >>>>>build the >>>>> > project and includes the license (Apache 1.1) for it in the same >>>>> > directory. >>>>> > I've added the required text to the NOTICE file, and have also >>>>>added >>>>> > the >>>>> > license to the top level LICENSE. >>>>> >>>>> OK, sounds good. >>>>> >>>>> > - The sample project also includes a copy of Douglas Crockford's >>>>> > json2.js >>>>> > [3] which is needed on BlackBerry OS 5 devices. The file states it >>>>>is >>>>> > in >>>>> > the public domain. I've added what appears to be the license to >>>>>the top >>>>> > level LICENSE file. >>>>> >>>>> OK. >>>>> >>>>> Did you already push these changes to the repository on git-wip-us? >>>>> >>>>> BR, >>>>> >>>>> Jukka Zitting >>>> >>>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential > information, privileged material (including material protected by the > solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public > information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, > please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your > system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this > transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
