On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Mike Edwards < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ant elder wrote: > > >> >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> I was under the impression that sca.tld [1] was comming from SCA >> specification. In this case, should it have the Apache License header >> on it ? >> >> [1] >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca/modules/host-webapp/src/main/resources/META-INF/sca.tld >> >> >> AIUI it is ok and appropriate to have this using the Apache license. Its a >> similar case to as when we have the spec defined Java interfaces, eg [1] or >> [2]. >> >> IANAL... >> >> ...ant >> >> [1] >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/tags/java/sca/1.3.1/modules/sca-api/src/main/java/org/osoa/sca/CallableReference.java >> [2] >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/geronimo-annotation_1.0_spec-1.1.1/src/main/java/javax/annotation/Generated.java >> >> >> >> > Folks, > > You are not at liberty to simply re-license some material that has been > produced by others. > > Either you should use the original license (the OSOA license in this case) > OR you should make a request to the original copyright holders for > permission to relicense the files. > > In my opinion, the OSOA license is pretty liberal and should not cause any > problems. > > > Yours, Mike. > Nothing is or has been "re-licensed". Its all a bit moot now anyway as Simon is changing all the headers. ...ant
