incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Todd Volkert <>
Subject Re: [Vote] Release Apache Pivot 1.1
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:32:06 GMT
> web/lib/servlet-api.jar : It looks like you mention this under your
> notice file but I don' t see details about it's license.

I wasn't sure how to handle our external binary dependencies, so I
asked on our podling's dev@ list (  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.

> wtk/lib/plugin.jar : I don' t see this mentioned in notice or license

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.

> wtk/stax-api1.0-jar : There was some discussion about the license of
> this jar in legal-discuss recently (see. LEGAL-42 [1]), and looks like
> people have been recommending using the jar from Geronimo which is
> under Apache license (geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec-1.0.1.jar)

I hadn't seen that ticket, but the version we used is from, which is also licensed under Apache 2.0, so
it should be good to go.

> 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 had read the best practices when building my NOTICE and LICENSE
file, and it states "The artifacts and documents to which each
subsidiary clause applies should be indicated in the document.", so
what I did at the time was to read each license to see which ones
required me to provide a copy of their license (BSD did).  CCA and CPL
didn't specify that I needed to include a copy of their license in my
distribution.  CCA was possibly ambiguous in this case, but that
license only applies to the silk icons, which clarify any such
ambiguity on their home page:
-- "All I ask is that you include a link back to this page in your

All that being said, I'm happy to include the CCA and CPL licenses in
our LICENSE file if that's a deal breaker for 1.1.  And in any case,
I'll add those licenses to that file for future releases just to make
sure we cover all bases in the future.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message