Le 09/06/2010 20:19, sebb a écrit : > On 09/06/2010, Luc Maisonobe <[email protected]> wrote: >> Le 09/06/2010 18:59, William Rossi (JIRA) a écrit : >> >>> >> > [ >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-375?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12877132#action_12877132 >> ] >> > >> > William Rossi commented on MATH-375: >> > ------------------------------------ >> > >> > >> > I'm not as well versed in these copyright issues I as I should be, but my >> > understanding is that as the copyright holder of the dfp library, I could >> > dual license it. In any event, dfp is not required by the software, its >> > only used in the supporting test cases. >> >> >> If it is used in the test cases, it should be included in the source >> release (which are what Apache promotes) and hence should be published >> with an Apache compatible license like Apache Software License V2 (of >> course) but also BSD for example. >> > > We don't include binaries (jars) in source releases. > Commons uses Maven, so normally jars are resolved from the Central repo. > > Apache releases can have optional dependencies on LGPL. > > So if there were other tests, then IMO the tests that depend on dfp > could be made optional. > > But ideally the jar should be licensed using one of the "category A or > B" licenses in > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > >> > >> > Which also why I whould be hesitant to assign copyright to ASF, if I were >> > to do that and ASF decides not to persue the project then I'm left with >> > nothing. By maintaining the copyright, I can issue licenses to other >> > parties as I see fit. >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> > >> > The ASF software grant agreement doesn't ask me to assign copyright to >> > ASF, but to mearly agree to specific license terms. >> >> >> You are right, the foundation does not ask for the copyright, it only >> requires a license allowing it to redistribute the code under the terms >> of the Apache Software License V2. The copyright still belongs to you. >> >> One minor glitch is that in the commons projects, we prefer not to have >> @author javadoc tags in the source but rather the names placed in the >> contributor section of the pom file (and hence publickly acknowledged in >> an automatically built page on the component site) and possibly in the >> NOTICE.txt file. > > Huh? > This does not apply to the dfp code - it is a binary library dependency.
I didn't have a look yet, thought it was another java source package. Luc
