On 4/27/2010 11:09 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Apr 27, 2010, at 9:08 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
On 4/27/2010 8:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Apr 27, 2010, at 6:27 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
On 4/26/2010 10:32 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
Nice stuff Rick. This obviously took some time to prepare the licensing
information properly. Thanks!
One minor comment -- I notice that some of the new files do not have
svn:eol-style=native (i.e. LICENSE.vm). Probably because we don't define the
file type in our recommended client configuration --
https://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxDEV/subversion-client-configuration.html. We might
want to consider updating...
A few questions:
* jaxb-impl-2.2_1 -- is this CDDL licensed? or dual-licensed (CDDL/GPL)?
The only license I've found for this is CDDL.
This URL seems to indicate that JAXB is dual licensed --
https://jaxb.dev.java.net/2.2/
If so, we should include the full license text and make sure we indicate our
license choice (CDDL). Some versions of the dual license include instructions
on how to apply to a work. Don't see any reason not to use the same wording...
I just discovered something very useful to know. You can delete directories
from a Nexus staging repository after the item has been closed. I've removed
the jaxb-impl from the staging area, and will rollback just the release of that
single item and stage a new vote for just jaxb-impl. This vote will now be for
all of the bundles except for jaxb-impl, which will allow this to proceed
without cancelling the entire vote.
Rick
* jstl -- same question about dual licensing. Also, the jar contains both
LICENSE and LICENSE.txt. I assume LICENSE.txt already existed in the jar?
I'm ok with the rollback of jaxb-impl -- as long as it's clear what people
are/have voted for.
JSTL has a CDDL license, also. Is it CDDL-only or dual licensed, also?
Rats, that's a dual license also. I'll remove that one from the vote
also and restage separately.
Rick
--kevan
