> > > web/lib/servlet-api.jar > > > In the case of this file, the answer seemed to be that there was no issue > > with including it. I interpreted that as not needing anything in the > > NOTICE or LICENSE file, but if that's not true, then I'll make changes > > as necessary. > > For every artifact, we should include appropriate documentation that > redistribution is permitted.
See http://tinyurl.com/d5ftw7 -- "No problems. You can even include the version available from the Tomcat (or is it Geronimo) projects as source code, modify it to your hearts desire.". It was and still is unclear what documentation to provide :) The JDK (both J2SE and J2EE) are not open source, but this seems to be ok to redistribute (at least for Tomcat, and their NOTICE file doesn't mention it: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/NOTICE). > > > wtk/lib/plugin.jar > > This file is included in the JRE, which we list as a system > > requirement. We only include it in the source distribution because > > it's not in the classpath by default when you compile, so we had to > > put it in a known place. > > Unless you can document the redistribution right, we cannot include it, and > you should therefore put it in a README or make your build script check for > it. See previous email. > > > wtk/stax-api1.0-jar : > > the version we used is from http://stax.codehaus.org/, which is also > > licensed under Apache 2.0, so it should be good to go. > > Fine, then please so indicate. I did so indicate: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/NOTICE > >> In general, the notice file in the distribution mention couple of > >> other licenses (e.g CPL 1.0, Java EE Servlet specification, BSD, etc) > >> which are not appended on the LICENSE file.See [2] for more detail. > > > I'm happy to include the CCA and CPL licenses in our LICENSE file [to] > > make sure we cover all bases > > Yes. Please re-roll your packages with the updated information. I will do so and call for a new vote. > Sorry, but this should be a one time PITA issue for you. We do need to > document redistribution rights, and particularly in the Incubator, we are > not lax on the subject. You are not being singled out. Many projects go > through this process, and with a lot more issues. Consider BlueSky, which > has been working to remove its viral license dependencies. I know I'm not being singled out; it's just very frustrating to go through this process on the podling's list, get an OK from both mentors, then wait a week for the vote on the public list, only to then be to told to change some stuff and start the entire process over. I'm trying to follow ASF's policies to the letter, and I'm being told contradicting information at the 11th hour. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
