On Dec 24, 2003, at 5:47 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
In the case of most of the licences we'd be likely to consider in this context it is usually perfectly OK to distribute Jars in a distribution because that gives you the opportunity to comply with licence conditions regarding distribution of their licence and other materials.

The problem boils down to the fact that some licences, and I know that JavaMail and Activation are cases of this, do allow re-distribution as part of a complete product, but don't allow re-distribution in any other case. Similarly OS licences require that a copy of the licence be distributed along with the binary, and simply placing both in cvs doesn't compel anyone to download or read the licence.

Understood. Perhaps a nice compromise is to allow projects to keep a .zip of the dependency JAR's in CVS which includes the license files, so there is no way to download just the JAR's themselves directly. It would be a simple Ant target to have this unzipped locally and used from then on out.


As far as OGNL is concerned, from my lurking on the Tapestry lists I'd say that it is pretty clear that there is a close association between the projects, and if you want to continue to have OGNL in cvs I'd get Drew to send a mail to the Tapestry dev list, or the PMC confirming that they are happy for this to happen.

I have e-mailed Drew to request he send an "all is well" message. I have yet to hear back from him, but we have a couple of reasons to rest easy on this one: Drew is a good friend of mine, so would not stir up any trouble related to this, and he gets great publicity from having OGNL embedded in Tapestry and other places.


FWIW on a previous occasion that this subject came up I got a similar assurance from Mark Mathews regarding the mm.mysql jdbc drivers, he was quite happy with the way we were doing things and this seemed to be acceptable. Leastways no-one here complained.

Again, I don't think we have any worries about OGNL. But your point is well taken with respect to other JAR's which disallow direct redistribution. Would the .zip solution be acceptable in these cases?


Erik


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to