I think the resolution also mentioned that we have a one year timeframe to change this (we should definitly check this). But as already half of the time past without us doing anything about it, well...
Carsten Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Ok, but you guys still need to fix: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/branches/BRANCH_2_1_X/legal/rhino1.5r4-continuations-R26.jar.license.txt > and > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/cocoon/trunk/commons/legal/src/main/resources/rhino-1.6R2.jar.license.txt > > And does the user get an notification when Rhino is downloaded through > Maven as required by > http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options-inproduct? > > On 27.10.2006 17:11:24 Ralph Goers wrote: >> This may not be too big a deal for Cocoon trunk. So long as flowscript >> is an optional part of Cocoon I believe we are OK. However, it probably >> also means that while other blocks can take advantage of flowscript they >> shouldn't rely on it. >> >> Jeremias Maerki wrote: >>> Hi Cocooners >>> >>> Before I start: Sorry to be a PITA to bring up Rhino again. ;-) >>> >>> Batik is starting to plan a new release and Rhino popped up in the back >>> of my mind. I went looking in your codebase to see what you did with >>> Rhino since I last checked. Turns out that Cocoon still lists Rhino as >>> under the MPL 1.1 in both Trunk and the 2.1.x branch. And that's clearly >>> wrong: >>> http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/download.html >>> http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/js/rhino/src/org/mozilla/javascript/Script.java >>> >>> And as you know this whole thing is further complicated by the fact that >>> the NPL is currently de-facto an excluded license which means that >>> neither Cocoon nor Batik are allowed to distribute or simply download >>> (through Maven without alerting the user) Rhino. >>> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#transition-examples-npl >>> >>> Means both our projects would actually have to remove Rhino and make >>> sure they run without it. >>> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#options >>> >>> Cliff wrote about certain options in March on legal-discuss (Message-ID: >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). Nobody >>> followed up on that. And it looks like both our projects have ignored >>> the third-party licence policy so far concerning this issue. Any ideas >>> how to proceed? Shall we raise it again on legal-discuss? Has there been >>> any progress in trying to convinve the Rhino project to switch to the >>> MPL? >>> >>> Jeremias Maerki >>> >>> > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
