On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM, ant elder<[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote: > > >> The webapp failure is not a blocker neither is the fact we include >> more licenses than is absolutely necessary. However I think we need to >> correct the missing license. so -1 on this basis. >> > > I think jstl is CDDL and that is in the Tuscany LICENSE file so just > to be clear, what license are you saying is missing, or is it just the > mention about jstl in the CDDL section? > > ...ant >
My first problem is that I struggled to find out precisely what the license is. Of course the Jar doesn't have a license associated with it. I ended up at https://jstl.dev.java.net/ which suggests either CDDL or GPL (which may be why the jar doesn't have a license in it). So assuming that this is where the jar comes from it would seem to be the case that we can use CDDL. Is this how you arrive at CDDL? If that's the case then yes we already have CDDL in our LICENSE file we just don't say that we are choosing this as the license to cover the jstl jar. Now you've pointed out we do actually have the license I'm more inclined to vote positively. Simon
