Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2004-01-02 Thread Danny Angus




 I see what you are saying, but why is this an issue only with OGNL? Is it
because of license
 incompatibilities? 'Cause there are other jars in CVS both Apache and
non-Apache.
Harish,

It isn't only an issue with OGNL, it is a general issue which has been
bubbling away for months.
In principle it is not good to have Jars in CVS. In practice it makes life
much easier for many people. There are moves afoot to produce some kind of
jar download site which would provide the convenience of automated
downloads with Ant or Maven, and comply with licence issues, and not
require jars to be in CVS, cvs is not great at handling binaries.

d.



***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee(s) only. 
If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to 
the intended recipient) please notify us immediately on 0141 306 2050 and delete the 
message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its 
contents to any other person. As Internet communications are capable of data 
corruption Student Loans Company Limited does not accept any  responsibility for 
changes made to this message after it was sent. For this reason it may be 
inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining 
written confirmation of it. Neither Student Loans Company Limited or the sender 
accepts any liability or responsibility for viruses as it is your responsibility to 
scan attachments (if any). Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of 
the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company 
Limited.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of 
computer viruses.

**


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



Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2004-01-02 Thread Craig R. McClanahan
Quoting Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 
 
 
 
  I see what you are saying, but why is this an issue only with OGNL? Is it
 because of license
  incompatibilities? 'Cause there are other jars in CVS both Apache and
 non-Apache.
 Harish,
 
 It isn't only an issue with OGNL, it is a general issue which has been
 bubbling away for months.
 In principle it is not good to have Jars in CVS. In practice it makes life
 much easier for many people.

It also makes it more difficult for many other people -- especially those that
need to integrate lots of open source projects (with overlapping dependencies)
together.  The goal here is to ensure that all the modules you want to create
are built with (and tested with) the *same* versions of the common
dependencies, not the ones whose jars happen to be checked in to CVS for that
particular module.

You still need mechanisms to allow the developer to override the default
decisions checked in to the build scripts.  For nearly all of the I've checked
in jars for the convenience of developers packages I've evaluated for use fail
to allow such overrides, and hard code their build classpaths to point at the
checked in JARs only.

 There are moves afoot to produce some kind of
 jar download site which would provide the convenience of automated
 downloads with Ant or Maven, and comply with licence issues, and not
 require jars to be in CVS, cvs is not great at handling binaries.
 
 d.
 

Craig McClanahan


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



Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2004-01-02 Thread Erik Hatcher
On Jan 2, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
You still need mechanisms to allow the developer to override the 
default
decisions checked in to the build scripts.  For nearly all of the 
I've checked
in jars for the convenience of developers packages I've evaluated for 
use fail
to allow such overrides, and hard code their build classpaths to point 
at the
checked in JARs only.
Well, we should address bad build file writing more than JAR's in CVS!  
:)  My build files follow this scheme 
http://www.ehatchersolutions.com/JavaDevWithAnt/ant.html#lib - and I 
have an Ant property for *each* JAR that can be easily overridden at 
many levels.

	Erik

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


Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-26 Thread Erik Hatcher
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]


Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-26 Thread Phil Steitz
Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
I am with Erik on no JARs in CVS. Unless it is a legal issue, I would 
certainly like to distribute all JARs with the distribution. It saves a 
lot of hassle and keeps uncessary traffic out of the user-list.
At the expense of lots of wasted bandwidth and disk space.  I agree with 
Robert.  Think about how many copies of commons-collections.jar we would 
have in CVS (and on our local drives) if all projects stored all of their 
dependent jars in CVS.  You can bundle dependent jars in the distributions 
without storing them in CVS.  See the tomcat and struts distros and builds.

I understand Erik's point about wanting to version the dependencies, but I 
don't think that storing dependent jars in CVS is a good general policy 
for Jakarta projects.  As noted elsewhere on this thread, there are also 
legal issues to consider for non-Apache jars.

Phil
-Harish

Erik Hatcher wrote:

In jakarta-tapestry/lib/ext lives all of the licenses of the embedded  
3rd party libraries.  In that directory is a LICENSE.ognl.txt which  
contains the full license.  I believe this is all that is needed to  
satisfy the license to redistribute the binary version.  I can assure  
that you we will never ever have a problem with OGNL (Drew is a good  
friend of mine, and having the high profile use of OGNL in Tapestry 
and  other projects like WebWork2 is great advertising for him and 
his  genius).

As for the larger issue of no JARs in CVS - I disagree.  I'm  
pragmatic and also like to have everything in CVS needed to build a  
distribution (even Ant itself for my employers projects).  It saves a  
lot of hassle to version all source code and dependencies together.   
Yes, we could make the Maven repository argument, but I personally  
prefer the complete offline usability of a CVS snapshot.  When 
Tapestry  came to Jakarta, it's dependencies were vetted extensively 
and several  were removed from CVS - so it is still a PITA to build 
Tapestry from  CVS (and according to Howard, his attempts to Mavenize 
the build have  been unsuccessful to date).

Erik

On Dec 24, 2003, at 3:47 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:

As I just happened to notice this on Incubator [AltRMI in fact]:

Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or 
more  of
the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C,
MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?

The below is, to my quick glance, a BSD licence, so approved. I'm 
with  you
on the no jars in CVS, but each to community to their own. Whether
Tapestry is properly fulfilling the licence by listing their use of  
ognl
in their documentation would be something to check on.

Hen

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Robert Leland wrote:

Can we really store non Apache licensed jars in the CVS ?

My personal preference is to store no jars in CVS

For Example I noticed ognl stored in Tapestry CVS :

/ 
/- 
-
//Copyright (c) 2002, Drew Davidson and Luke Blanshard
//  All rights reserved.
//
//Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or  
without
//  modification, are permitted provided that the following  
conditions are
//  met:
//
//Redistributions of source code must retain the above 
copyright  notice,
//  this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
//Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above  
copyright
//  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in  
the
//  documentation and/or other materials provided with the  
distribution.
//Neither the name of the Drew Davidson nor the names of its
contributors
//  may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this  
software
//  without specific prior written permission.
//
//THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND  
CONTRIBUTORS
//  AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
//  LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
//  FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
//  COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,  
INDIRECT,
//  INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES  
(INCLUDING,
//  BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR 
SERVICES;  LOSS
//  OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
//  AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT  
LIABILITY,
//  OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY  
OUT OF
//  THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
SUCH
//  DAMAGE.
//






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


Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-24 Thread Henri Yandell

As I just happened to notice this on Incubator [AltRMI in fact]:

Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more of
the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C,
MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?

The below is, to my quick glance, a BSD licence, so approved. I'm with you
on the no jars in CVS, but each to community to their own. Whether
Tapestry is properly fulfilling the licence by listing their use of ognl
in their documentation would be something to check on.

Hen

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Robert Leland wrote:

 Can we really store non Apache licensed jars in the CVS ?

 My personal preference is to store no jars in CVS

 For Example I noticed ognl stored in Tapestry CVS :

 //--
 //Copyright (c) 2002, Drew Davidson and Luke Blanshard
 //  All rights reserved.
 //
 //Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 //  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
 //  met:
 //
 //Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
 //  this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 //Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 //  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
 //  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
 //Neither the name of the Drew Davidson nor the names of its
 contributors
 //  may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
 //  without specific prior written permission.
 //
 //THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
 //  AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
 //  LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
 //  FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
 //  COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
 //  INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
 //  BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS
 //  OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
 //  AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
 //  OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF
 //  THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
 //  DAMAGE.
 //



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



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



Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-24 Thread Erik Hatcher
In jakarta-tapestry/lib/ext lives all of the licenses of the embedded  
3rd party libraries.  In that directory is a LICENSE.ognl.txt which  
contains the full license.  I believe this is all that is needed to  
satisfy the license to redistribute the binary version.  I can assure  
that you we will never ever have a problem with OGNL (Drew is a good  
friend of mine, and having the high profile use of OGNL in Tapestry and  
other projects like WebWork2 is great advertising for him and his  
genius).

As for the larger issue of no JARs in CVS - I disagree.  I'm  
pragmatic and also like to have everything in CVS needed to build a  
distribution (even Ant itself for my employers projects).  It saves a  
lot of hassle to version all source code and dependencies together.   
Yes, we could make the Maven repository argument, but I personally  
prefer the complete offline usability of a CVS snapshot.  When Tapestry  
came to Jakarta, it's dependencies were vetted extensively and several  
were removed from CVS - so it is still a PITA to build Tapestry from  
CVS (and according to Howard, his attempts to Mavenize the build have  
been unsuccessful to date).

	Erik

On Dec 24, 2003, at 3:47 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:

As I just happened to notice this on Incubator [AltRMI in fact]:

Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more  
of
the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C,
MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?

The below is, to my quick glance, a BSD licence, so approved. I'm with  
you
on the no jars in CVS, but each to community to their own. Whether
Tapestry is properly fulfilling the licence by listing their use of  
ognl
in their documentation would be something to check on.

Hen

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Robert Leland wrote:

Can we really store non Apache licensed jars in the CVS ?

My personal preference is to store no jars in CVS

For Example I noticed ognl stored in Tapestry CVS :

/ 
/- 
-
//Copyright (c) 2002, Drew Davidson and Luke Blanshard
//  All rights reserved.
//
//Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or  
without
//  modification, are permitted provided that the following  
conditions are
//  met:
//
//Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright  
notice,
//  this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
//Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above  
copyright
//  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in  
the
//  documentation and/or other materials provided with the  
distribution.
//Neither the name of the Drew Davidson nor the names of its
contributors
//  may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this  
software
//  without specific prior written permission.
//
//THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND  
CONTRIBUTORS
//  AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
//  LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
//  FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
//  COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,  
INDIRECT,
//  INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES  
(INCLUDING,
//  BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;  
LOSS
//  OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
//  AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT  
LIABILITY,
//  OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY  
OUT OF
//  THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
SUCH
//  DAMAGE.
//



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


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


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


Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-24 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy
I am with Erik on no JARs in CVS. Unless it is a legal issue, I would certainly like to distribute 
all JARs with the distribution. It saves a lot of hassle and keeps uncessary traffic out of the 
user-list.

-Harish

Erik Hatcher wrote:

In jakarta-tapestry/lib/ext lives all of the licenses of the embedded  
3rd party libraries.  In that directory is a LICENSE.ognl.txt which  
contains the full license.  I believe this is all that is needed to  
satisfy the license to redistribute the binary version.  I can assure  
that you we will never ever have a problem with OGNL (Drew is a good  
friend of mine, and having the high profile use of OGNL in Tapestry and  
other projects like WebWork2 is great advertising for him and his  genius).

As for the larger issue of no JARs in CVS - I disagree.  I'm  
pragmatic and also like to have everything in CVS needed to build a  
distribution (even Ant itself for my employers projects).  It saves a  
lot of hassle to version all source code and dependencies together.   
Yes, we could make the Maven repository argument, but I personally  
prefer the complete offline usability of a CVS snapshot.  When Tapestry  
came to Jakarta, it's dependencies were vetted extensively and several  
were removed from CVS - so it is still a PITA to build Tapestry from  
CVS (and according to Howard, his attempts to Mavenize the build have  
been unsuccessful to date).

Erik

On Dec 24, 2003, at 3:47 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:

As I just happened to notice this on Incubator [AltRMI in fact]:

Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more  of
the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C,
MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?
The below is, to my quick glance, a BSD licence, so approved. I'm 
with  you
on the no jars in CVS, but each to community to their own. Whether
Tapestry is properly fulfilling the licence by listing their use of  ognl
in their documentation would be something to check on.

Hen

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Robert Leland wrote:

Can we really store non Apache licensed jars in the CVS ?

My personal preference is to store no jars in CVS

For Example I noticed ognl stored in Tapestry CVS :

/ 
/- 
-
//Copyright (c) 2002, Drew Davidson and Luke Blanshard
//  All rights reserved.
//
//Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or  
without
//  modification, are permitted provided that the following  
conditions are
//  met:
//
//Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright  
notice,
//  this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
//Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above  copyright
//  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in  the
//  documentation and/or other materials provided with the  
distribution.
//Neither the name of the Drew Davidson nor the names of its
contributors
//  may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this  
software
//  without specific prior written permission.
//
//THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND  
CONTRIBUTORS
//  AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
//  LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
//  FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
//  COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT,  INDIRECT,
//  INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES  
(INCLUDING,
//  BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;  
LOSS
//  OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
//  AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT  
LIABILITY,
//  OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY  
OUT OF
//  THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
SUCH
//  DAMAGE.
//



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


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


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



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


RE: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-24 Thread Danny Angus
Erik

 As for the larger issue of no JARs in CVS - I disagree.

I don't believe that there is room for opinion on this, the fact is it is possible for 
people to download jars using viewcvs without having read the licence therefore it is 
not acceptable.
UNLESS you have *specific* dispensation from the licensor to do this for your project.

d.



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



RE: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-24 Thread Danny Angus

 I am with Erik on no JARs in CVS. Unless it is a legal issue, I 
 would certainly like to distribute 
 all JARs with the distribution. 

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.

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.

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.

d.


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



Re: [License] for jars in CVS

2003-12-24 Thread Harish Krishnaswamy
I see what you are saying, but why is this an issue only with OGNL? Is it because of license 
incompatibilities? 'Cause there are other jars in CVS both Apache and non-Apache.

-Harish

Danny Angus wrote:
I am with Erik on no JARs in CVS. Unless it is a legal issue, I 
would certainly like to distribute 
all JARs with the distribution. 


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.

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.

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.

d.

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



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