[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3374?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12985470#action_12985470
]
Charles Oliver Nutter commented on HBASE-3374:
----------------------------------------------
My reading of Apache's position on CDDL (from
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories) is that CDDL
would be acceptable if the software/library in question is distributed only in
binary form and an appropriate note of the so-licensed software is made in the
LICENSE file. This appears to puts CDDL in the same category as CPL, under
which license JRuby itself is allowed for inclusion in HBase.
So I think CDDL would be acceptable...correct?
> Our jruby jar has *GPL jars in it; fix
> --------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-3374
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-3374
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: stack
> Assignee: stack
> Priority: Blocker
> Fix For: 0.90.0
>
> Attachments: jruby.txt
>
>
> The latest JRuby's complete jar bundles *GPL jars (JNA and JFFI among
> others). It looks like the functionality we depend on -- the shell in
> particular -- makes use of these dirty jars so they are hard to strip. They
> came in because we (I!) just updated our JRuby w/o checking in on what
> updates contained. JRuby has been doing this for a while now (1.1.x added
> the first LGPL). You have to go all the ways back to the original HBase
> checkin, HBASE-487, of JRuby -- 1.0.3 -- to get a JRuby w/o *GPL jars.
> Plan is to try and revert our JRuby all the ways down to 1.0.3 before
> shipping 0.90.0. Thats what this issue is about.
> We should also look into moving off JRuby in the medium to long-term. Its
> kinda awkward sticking on an old version that is no longer supported. I'll
> open an issue for that.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
