https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44517
--- Comment #3 from Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-03-09 04:36:22 PST --- I would be grateful if you did a little more research before throwing around unfounded accusations of plagiarism. The tone of your first paragraph does little to encourage a constructive response. The original Sun files contain wording that is incompatible with distribution under the Apache License v2 (AL2). These files should not have been checked into svn. However, some were and have since been fixed. The svn logs explain why the removal the text is OK. There is an added complication that the DTDs exist in a number of places in the repo and I wasn't consistent in which location I first fixed the files before copying them to the other locations. This means you have to check the svn log carefully for each file to determine its history. In summary, three options were considered for ensuring the files can be legally distributed with Tomcat: Option A. Where the original file had been contributed by a Sun employee, with Sun's full knowledge, whilst working under a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) and possibly a Corporate CLA (see http://www.apache.org/licenses/) that file should have had the restrictive text removed and the standard AL2 text added before it was first committed to an Apache repository. Where the text had not been removed before first commit, we checked with the original committer that the contribution was intended to have been made under their CLA and where it was modified the file's header to reflect this. Option B. Sun has licensed most (possibly all I didn't check since we didn't go down this route) of the relevant files under CDDL. It was our preference to distribute files under AL2 so since AL2 versions of all of the files were available, we did not explore this in detail. Option C. Geronimo went to some pains to generate AL2 licensed, spec-derived versions of some of the DTDs. I know the ASF legal folks were involved in this but you'd need to talk to the Geronimo folks to get the details since Tomcat wasn't involved in the process, we just used the output. When we last went around this buoy the Geroninmo folks confirmed that these files were OK. Most of the files could be dealt with under option A. When this option wasn't available, we went with option C. The errata were dealt with the same way. I am not going to get into how the JCP should work. Google for the JCP / ASF history on that one. jcp.org seems to be inaccessible for me at the minute so I can't give you the URL. I don't recall if the changed was sourced from the errata, geronimo or somewhere else. The svn logs should add some illumination. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
