Todd Volkert wrote: >>>> 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
I am not sure what Tomcat is doing, and you can check. I didn't say to remove it, I said to document it. The Geronimo JAR is good because we know its provenance and rights. I would expect to find a suitably licensed version with Glassfish, too, but have not looked. > [Tomcat's] NOTICE file doesn't mention it They should be asked why it doesn't. >>>> 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. Sorry, which previous e-mail? Niclas also expressed a concern in the one you quoted above. I see that you are using Ant for the build. :-) We had to this issue in JAMES a number of years ago with Sun's older versions of JavaMail and JAF, where we were required to remove it from our source, and code the Ant script to check for it and to instruct to the user to take action when missing. >>>> 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 (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/pivot/branches/1.1/NOTICE) OK, so are there any remaining complaints on this one, or can we cross it off the list? >> 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. I commiserate. We've seen it happen enough times. Many projects go through this, but it is a one-time thing. Once you've gotten the licensing issues out of the way, you should not have to revisit it unless your dependencies change. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
