On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
Yes, i found it at https://jstl.dev.java.net/ too > 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. > Ok, the not compiling with JDK5 isn't great either so if we do respin it would be good to get both fixed, but if there are 3 +1s by tomorrow I'm tempted to try to go with this RC just to get the release done. ...ant
