On Apr 24, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:31 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Um, this is really where they belong those, since they are specific
to Geronimo. But it should be possible to generate the resources w/
o license details... but probably have to use the new archetype-ng
stuff, which is on my list todo actually...
I agree that this is where they belong.
I'm not sure I understand Dave's issue. If the files were
substantially changed to be non-Geronimo specific archetypes, then
IMO, there'd have been enough change that they prolly would no
longer be covered under our license...
I guess my thinking only applies to the plugin archetype. Lets say
someone writes some gbeans and comes up with a plugin using them that
doesn't include any apache code. Suppose they want to license the
plugin under say lgpl. With the apache license headers in the
archetype templates, do they have to include an Apache notice with
their plugin?
-- compiled plugin: maybe, the archetype has a bunch of hints about
how to get the car-maven-plugin to generate the geronimo-plugin.xml,
which goes into the plugin
-- source: yes, the generated pom will have apache license headers in
it.
Is this desirable?
thanks
david jencks
--kevan
