It's hard do judge by files that were already removed, what's the evidence they should be from Spring?
If the effort can be overseen rather easily, I think I'm fine with +1 for B but in future cases I really would like to know and learn why such files are an issue and which of them. Werner On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Reinhard Sandtner < [email protected]> wrote: > +1 for B > > keep it simple ;-) > > lg > reini > > > Am 03.01.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: > > > > As you might have read in the previous mail I did remove some code which > has no clean IP provenance. The code seems to have been taken from the > Spring project. Although it is ALv2 and so the license is fine we still > don't own the copyright and there was no IP check done for this code. > > > > This all would be resolvable by going into the Spring SCM history, check > who wrote the code parts and patches, make sure it was not e.g. taken from > a GPL source, etc. After that we would need to ask Spring for a code grant. > > > > > > All this is doable but a certain amount of work. And thus I really > suggest to do this only if we really need that code. > > > > 1.) do we really need those code parts? Do we need most of the > spring-ant integration? What for? > > 2.) Wouldn't it be easier to write the functionality ourselves and be > able to only implement the pieces we really need? Currently all we need is > ClassLoader.getResources() and be done. > > > > Thus please VOTE on > > > > > > A.) Go through the IP clearing and try to get the rights for the Spring > code > > > > B.) Simply write those pieces ourselves. It's no rocket science, really! > > > > > > +1 for B from me. > > > > > > LieGrue, > > strub > >
