> From: Theodore W. Leung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > As I recall, Dirk was the one who suggested licenses next to the jar > files -- this is what all the other XML projects are doing. > > FOP did not resolve their license issue with Jimi -- they decided to put > a "go here and download Jimi from Sun" readme file in. > > Also, you guys still have an issue with Jisp, because the license only > covers source distribution, not binary -- kind of like djb's Qmail > license.
We already have been there. Recently. Please see attached email. And: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=101506013000870&w=2 Regards, Vadim > > Ted > > On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 05:01, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > why do we have all these licences in different places, most (all?) > > > of them are in the legal directory, but some are also(!) in the > > > lib/core and lib/optional directory. > > > > > > And some are even misnamed (we have xalan 2.2.0 licence, but > > > xalan 2.3.1 jar; same with xerces etc.) > > > > > > Can we sort this out? > > > > "Morrison, John" wrote: > > > > > > A higher authority spoke. > > > > > > Can't remember who put them in, but I didn't recognise the username. > > > Check the CVS history. > > > > Ted Leung did, on behalf of the XML PMC. > > > > But I completely agree with Carsten: dear PMC, please, tell us: is it > > fine to have *all* the legal stuff in the /legal directory instead of > > having it intermixed with the rest of the jars and such? > > > > Can we go ahead and remove those licenses in /lib and just go on on > > /legal as we have been doing in the past? > > > > Moreover: did the FOP project resolve the issue with the JIMI library > > which is currently the only one we have legal problems with? > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be > > able to give birth to a dancing star. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message --- Title: RE: removal of jar files in coccon CVS> From: Theodore W. Leung [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Ok,
>
> I've looked in legal, but I don't agree that the licenses are all sorted
> out. In particular:
>
> The license for Jimi doesn't allow us to distribute it.
> The License for Jisp covers source but not binary distributionRegarding JISP:
http://www.coyotegulch.com/jisp/#License:
--------------8<--------------
Scott's Very Free LicenseThe following license applies to the entire Jisp package, and is included in jisp_1_0_2_distro.jar and all source files contained therein:
--------------8<--------------
Does this resolve the issue? Should this be mentioned in the license itself?
Vadim
--- End Message ---
> Ted
>
>
> On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 15:22, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > "Theodore W. Leung" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've just completed adding license files for all the ASF licensed jars
> > > that are present in the cocoon1 and cocoon2 repositories. Any jars
> > > without license files will be removed from CVS early next week.
> >
> > Ted,
> >
> > FYI, we have placed all of our legal stuff over to xml-cocoon2/legal/
> > so, please, don't remove anything from that repository since we have all
> > of our licenses well sort out.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
> > able to give birth to a dancing star.
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
