Sorry for the slow response.. comments inline.
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Kevan Miller wrote:
On Jul 18, 2006, at 8:53 AM, John Sisson wrote:
Whilst testing the geronimo eclipse plugin, eclipse prompted me to
acknowledge the Sun license at
http://developers.sun.com/license/berkeley_license.html when
caching the j2ee schema files (e.g.
http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/j2ee/ejb-jar_2_1.xsd ).
This made me wonder whether this license has been included for
Geronimo (since we redistribute schema files) and it appears the
LICENSE.txt file in 1.1 doesn't contain it.
I'll add a JIRA for 1.1.1 if there aren't any objections.
Can anyone think of any other licenses or notices we may have
overlooked?
Yes. Would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
1) Fix LICENSE and NOTICE files for branches/1.1/modules/util
(currently they are only Bouncy Castle -- I believe that we have ASL
code in there, also).
I think we should do it
Agree.
2) Do we need to add Bouncy Castle to our "global" LICENSE and
NOTICE files (i.e. branches/1.1/modules/scripts/src/resources/) ? I
think yes.
Agree.
3) Insure NOTICE files are included in our jar files (currently only
LICENSE files are there)
Agree.
4) Do we need to add LICENSE/NOTICE files in our generated CARs?
Any artifact we publish should have a LICENSE/NOTICE file in it.
5) Can the "global" LICENSE and NOTICE files be used in all our
generated artifacts (distributions, jars, cars)? Or do we need
global files and specific license/notice files for generated module
jars and car files?
--kevan
2-4 should be run by legal, no?
I think we should aim to have LICENSE and NOTICE files specific to each
jar. What I am not sure of is what licenses need to be included. See
my related post
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=115335093425013&w=2
To support #5, I hope we don't need some kind of maven magic.
I think 1,2,3 are must do's. I think we can ignore 4. There are some
CAR "files" in ibiblio -- http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/geronimo/cars/
However, I'm not sure why they are there... They are all "1.0" and
dated December 22nd. Should we have them removed? To my knowledge, we
don't build or distribute CAR files in 1.1 (we do have ".car"
directories in our repository, but IMO that's no different from any
other directory name we might have...)
Regarding 5, I think the right thing to do is have a global LICENSE
and NOTICE file in the base of our distributions. We currently have
this. Each of our jar files should have LICENSE and NOTICE files
specific to each jar. I don't think that this is hard to do. Am I
wrong? They all need standard ASL license and notice files. util needs
to include bouncy castle info. Are there other geronimo generated jars
with any licensing requirements beyond ASL 2?
I think many modules would need to include licenses for third party
libraries as their licenses say "use of". I also discussed this in the
related post link above. We may need to ask legal about this.
John
--kevan
