incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release ManifoldCF 0.5-incubating, RC0
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:19:13 GMT
We distribute binaries with the source distribution as well.
Otherwise it is not possible to build the source.  This too is similar
to Lucene and Solr.

I am curious as to when it became a requirement that source and binary
distributions have independent LICENSE and NOTICE files.


On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Roy T. Fielding <> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
>> Some clarifications:
>> Hi Roy,
>> (1) Our LICENSE.txt file currently contains references to all
>> non-Apache jars that we redistribute, and a reference or description
>> of the licensing of that jar.  We do not attempt to relicense
>> anything.  No shared release process is involved for any third-party
>> jar we redistribute.  The actual text we include is typically
>> something like this:
>> "This product includes a jaxb-impl.jar.
>> License: Dual license consisting of the CDDL v1.0 and GPL v2
>> (
>> Jar included under terms of CDDL v1.0 license."
>> (2) The purpose for including the above is to clarify the terms under
>> which we believe that we are able to redistribute those jars.
>> Therefore I don't think Sebb's request is unreasonable.  If you
>> believe that this information is in the wrong place, then please let
>> us know where it should go.  As I've said before, we're not doing
>> things any differently than most other Apache projects.
>> Please clarify your recommendations.
> I had two separate comments, neither of which are intended as
> a criticism of ManifoldCF.
> First, Sebb's request is reasonable; it just happens to be wrong.
> No Apache project needs to say "Jar included under terms of
> CDDL v1.0 license."  A project might choose to say that, but
> it is nonsense, and certainly isn't a requirement of incubation.
> Second, Apache projects only release SOURCE.  We don't release
> third party binaries, period.  Hence, the specific examples that
> you provided are not valid for a release LICENSE.  They might be
> valid for the license file included within a binary package, but
> please note that such a license file will be different from the
> LICENSE that is provided in the source distribution, and is not
> something we would be voting upon (because no PMC can be expected
> to verify the validity of those binaries).  Hence, what you need
> to do is split the LICENSE in two -- one for source packages (that
> do not include dependent jars) and one for binary packages (that
> do include the dependent jars).
> Hopefully, Jukka can step in and document how the LICENSE and
> NOTICE files are crafted for Jackrabbit and Sling, since those
> projects have the exact same issues regarding third-party libraries
> that are only included in the binary packages.
> ....Roy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message