On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Markus Koschany wrote:
> It is the other way around. The point is there is no Policy violation
| 2.3. Copyright considerations[19]¶
|
| Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
| copyright information and distribution
Note the “its” here. “It” being th
Le 21/11/2018 à 19:57, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> Why don’t you just change the copyright file and upload a
> fix instead of trying to weasel out causing a lengthy
> discussion? That would save time.
I will when I have to update the package. But I disagree with the
severity and the urgency. I ha
Am 21.11.18 um 19:57 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
>> 2.1 under the CDDL+GPL and the version 2.1.1 under the EPL+GPL. So it's
>> still correct to state that the code is licensed under the CDDL.
>
> the code, perhaps, but not the source package you received.
>
> Why don’t you just cha
Hi Emmanuel,
> 2.1 under the CDDL+GPL and the version 2.1.1 under the EPL+GPL. So it's
> still correct to state that the code is licensed under the CDDL.
the code, perhaps, but not the source package you received.
Why don’t you just change the copyright file and upload a
fix instead of trying to
Am 21.11.18 um 19:30 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
[...]
> This is wrong, see the NOTICE file:
>
> | ## Declared Project Licenses
> |
> | This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
> terms
> | of the Eclipse Public License v. 2.0 which is available at
> | http://www.eclip
Control: severity -1 normal
The license changed in the version 2.1.1 because the project was donated
to the Eclipse Foundation. There is no code change between the version
2.1 under the CDDL+GPL and the version 2.1.1 under the EPL+GPL. So it's
still correct to state that the code is licensed under
severity 914291 serious
thanks
On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 21.11.18 um 18:15 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> > Justification: Policy 2.3, 12.5, possibly 2.1
OK, not 2.1 — after a quick review and word diff against
EPLv1 it looks DFSG-free enough.
> Further investigation into the
Control: severity -1 normal
Am 21.11.18 um 18:15 schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Source: jaxrs-api
> Version: 2.1.2-2
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.3, 12.5, possibly 2.1
>
> In an internal Java™ project of $dayjob I was checking licences
> of updated components and found that javax.ws.
Source: jaxrs-api
Version: 2.1.2-2
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3, 12.5, possibly 2.1
In an internal Java™ project of $dayjob I was checking licences
of updated components and found that javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api
2.1.1 has a new, different, licence I am unfamiliar with. I de‐
cided
9 matches
Mail list logo
