We didnt discuss it so +1 for removal - btw you removed legal code as well (logging stuff) Le 3 janv. 2015 22:32, "Werner Keil" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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 > > > > >
