On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> I was under the impression that sca.tld [1] was comming from SCA >> specification. In this case, should it have the Apache License header >> on it ? >> >> [1] >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/host-webapp/src/main/resources/META-INF/sca.tld >> >> -- >> Luciano Resende >> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk >> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >> > > Good point, it comes substantially (there are some Tuscany specific parts > of if) from the OSOA JEE Integration Specification so it should have the > attributions and license associated with it as defined in the specification. > sca.tld is not one of the artifacts available from > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0/ so I expect we need to treat it as a > portion of the spec that has been copied. > > The license in the specification [1] doesn't give specific permission to > construct derviative works of the specification so this gives us a problem > w.r.t the changes that we need to make. In lieu of immediate changes to the > specification this would be easier if sca.tld were made available at > http://www.osoa.org/xmlns/sca/1.0/. Thoughts? > > As an aside is the addition of <rtexprval> something we should raise with > OASIS or is it specific to our implementation? > > Regards > > Simon > > [1] > http://www.osoa.org/download/attachments/35/SCA_JAVAEE_Integration_V100.pdf?version=1 > I've raised TUSCANY-2620 to fix this for 1.3.2. I think the derivation point is not so problematic as this particular part of the spec is marked, in places, indicating that implementation specific aspects will be present. I'll go ahead and change the license to the OSOA spec license. Going forward we do need to decide what to do about <rtexprval> w.r.t the OASIS specifications. Simon
