Hi Greg, this file wasn't contributed by myself (I just committed it as part of a patch to remove dependency on Sun internal APIs), so I can't really comment on the intent of this other license header.
Op 10-nov.-2013, om 21:22 heeft Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> het volgende geschreven: > (This may be a duplicate - I sent once from an email that wasn’t subscribed > to dev@r.a.o). > > Hi all - In particular Jonathan Costers: > > I’m in process of rolling a release candidate for 2.2.2 (out of the 2.2 > branch), and I’ve noticed that we’re missing AL2.0 headers on a few files. > Most of them are simply manifest files that were in the original contribution > from Sun, so I’m OK with just adding the AL2.0 header. However one of them > has an Inria copyright on it. > > com.sun.jini.tool.classdepend.AbstractDependencyVisitor.java was added by > jcosters on 4/17/2009 and subsequently edited by peter_firmstone on 9/25/2009. > > I suspect that you started from a shell that was in the asm.jar examples > (because why would asm use the file name ‘AbstractDependencyVisitor’?), and > that leaving the INRIA header on it was a mistake, so we really ought to just > change it to AL2.0. Jonathan, could you confirm that? > > BTW, the INRIA license is AL2.0-compatible, so leaving the header there would > be OK, but it just seems out-of-place. > > Cheers, > > Greg Trasuk. >
