Never mind, I see it’s all listed in the JIRA issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-272.
It appears that the code originated with Tim Blackman, who noted that one of the files was part of “asm”. So I guess that license has to stay, at least for now. Thanks again, Greg Trasuk. On Nov 10, 2013, at 5:38 PM, Greg Trasuk <tras...@stratuscom.com> wrote: > > Do you happen to recall who provided it? Was it in a JIRA issue? > > Cheers, > > Greg. > > On Nov 10, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Jonathan Costers <jonathan.cost...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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. >>> >> >
