Ok, thanks guys, that's make the things clearer, we only need to inform the
user via a license file.
-----Message d'origine-----
From: Om
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jira] [Resolved] (FLEX-33245) Apache Flex Mavenizer needs a
review of the licenses used
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Frédéric THOMAS
<[email protected]>wrote:
Justin,
I'm not really aware regarding licenses stuffs but from my point of view
and tell me if I'm wrong, because we don't store the source code of this
lib and because we don't provide to users an already built version of the
mavenizer and because this lib is only declare as an external pointer in a
xml file, only the user, when he builds the mavenizer, uses this lib, not
us, then I wonder, how should we care about the license ?
-Fred
The scenario you describe "might" be permitted according to Apache's
Third-party Licensing Policy [1] In any case, we need to explicitly alert
the user of the appropriate license and that it is not associated with
Apache.
I highly recommend that you read the entire policy to make sure that there
are no scenarios under which we violate any of these policies.
Thanks,
Om
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#options-optional
-----Message d'origine----- From: Justin Mclean
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [jira] [Resolved] (FLEX-33245) Apache Flex Mavenizer needs a
review of the licenses used
Hi,
I just have to point out that GPL is not a compatible license with Apache.
http://www.apache.org/**licenses/GPL-compatibility.**html<http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>
http://www.apache.org/legal/**3party.html<http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html>
CDDL is a category B license so that may be OK, however GPL is an excluded
license.
Can you give some more info on how jersey is used.
I assume this is the license in question:
http://jersey.java.net/CDDL+**GPL.html<http://jersey.java.net/CDDL+GPL.html>
Thanks,
Justin
