On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:21 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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 > > Hi I would still like to hear why this is the case explained in simple terms. For example, Luciano has pointed out in the other thread that the API Java classes seem to have come from Tuscany in the first place so that is a good justification why they should remain ASF2 licensed. This doesn't seem to be the case with sca.tld though. Simon
