Hi, On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <[email protected]> wrote: > The content (after filtering Apache and > Eclipse licenses) is...
That looks good to me, thanks! Snipped that content below, [2]. [1] is the reference for such third-party dependencies. BSD is fine in all cases. CDDL is fine for an external dependency. > ...In case of dual licensed ones we will choose > CDDL which is fine as well, right?... Yes, my understanding is that when dual-licensed you pick the best one for your purpose. > License: provided without support or warranty ( > http://www.json.org/license.html)... This one is a problem as per [1], see "JSON license" there. It will need to be removed but as a podling I suppose it's fine to keep it for a first release if that's too much work right now. I suggest that you create a jira ticket for that removal, indicating where it's used, and we can refer to that in the Incubator PMC release vote as an intention to fix this. > Am I interpreting the output of maven-remote-resources-plugin correctly... I think so - as you see it gives a nice overview of those licenses. -Bertrand [1] http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html [2] incubator-netbeans-html4j$ find | grep DEPEND | xargs cat | grep License: | grep -v "Apache.*2" | grep -v "Eclipse Public License" | sort -u License: BSD (http://asm.objectweb.org/license.html) License: CDDL+GPL (http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html) License: Dual license consisting of the CDDL v1.1 and GPL v2 ( http://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html) License: Dual license consisting of the CDDL v1.1 and GPL v2 ( https://glassfish.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL_1_1.html) License: provided without support or warranty ( http://www.json.org/license.html)
