Ant, this all sounds good, +1 to the spec project move, and certainly +1 to aggregating jars if we can
but just to push back one more time, as I can see scope for your response to Frank being open to misinterpretation. Can I check on what you mean by renaming the packages, and whether there are any legal issues there please? Kelvin On 13/06/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/13/07, Frank Budinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ant, > > You said this: > > > While building that it could also rename the > > emf packages to start with org.apache.tuscany to avoid any version > problems > > when using Tuscany SDO with existing EMF code. > > We have discussed doing this for quite some time. It would certainly > eliminate the EMF version problems, but I never knew if the Eclipse and > Apache licenses actually allow us to do this. Are you sure that this is > allowed? Pretty sure yes. Its fine for us to distribute the emf binaries as they are "Category B: Binary Licenses Only" as defined in http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html, and AFAICS there's nothing in the EPL that prevents us doing this. ...ant
