Hi Juan Pablo,
The license update is looking very good. Thanks for pitching in and
doing all this heavy lifting!
I have some concerns with the files listed below.
1. The SilkIconSet images are licensed under CC-attribution 2.5
license. The NOTICE needs to accommodate the comment from the source
file:
"All I ask is that you include a link back to this page in your
credits."
Something like:
SilkIconSet (C) Mark James. http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
2. fckconfig.js can be licensed under any of several licenses, but you
have to choose one of them and include which one in the NOTICE and
then copy the entire license into the LICENSE. The MPL 1.1 or later is
explicitly mentioned, and since there have been issues with MPL 1.1,
I'd suggest choosing MPL 2.0 in which these issues have been resolved.
For example:
fckconfig.js Copyright (C) 2003-2008 Frederico Caldeira Knabben
licensed under the terms of Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 http://http
://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0
3. mootools.js
The source contains a problematic comment: "MIT Style License". But
the web site says "MooTools is released under the Open SourceMIT
license, which gives you the possibility to use it and modify it in
every circumstance".
So, I'd go with:
mootools.js Copyright (c) 2006 Valerio Proietti, <http://
mad4milk.net>, licensed under the terms of the MIT license http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
4. posteditor.js
Looking at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-jspwiki-dev/201204.mbox/%3c701083845.7526.1335706069329.javamail.tom...@hel.zones.apache.org%3E
it's not clear whether posteditor.js is even part of the release any
more?
5. Some other contents of NOTICE are not enlightening. For example,
OSCache Copyright (c) 2001 The OpenSymphony Group. All rights reserved.
The "All rights reserved" doesn't actually grant us any rights. The
license under which we are using the files needs to be explicit.
Similarly for all the other projects with "All rights reserved".
6. The LICENSE file needs to copy verbatim all of the licenses for all
of the projects that we are including. I notice that in the docs/
LICENSE.* you have reproduced many of the licenses in use, but these
should be put either into the top level LICENSE file or in a LICENSE
file where the code is actually located in the source tree. The former
is my advice.
Craig
On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:31 PM, juanpa...@apache.org wrote:
Modified: incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml?rev=1396339&r1=1396338&r2=1396339&view=diff
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
======================================================================
--- incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml (original)
+++ incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml Tue Oct 9 21:31:17 2012
@@ -1703,8 +1703,8 @@ To automate the JAR signing processs, yo
<report reportFile="${doc.rat}/rat.txt" addLicenseHeaders="true">
<fileset dir="src/org"/>
- <fileset dir="src/webdocs" excludes="**/*.js">
- </fileset>
+ <fileset dir="src/webdocs"
+ excludes="**/SilkIconSet-readme.txt,**/
fckconfig.js,**/mootools.js,**/posteditor.js" />
<fileset dir="tests/org"/>
</report>
</target>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
