You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Craig L Russell <cr...@oracle.com> on 2012/10/10 21:53:25 UTC
Rat report
Hi Juan Pablo,
The license update is looking very good. Thanks for pitching in and
doing all this heavy lifting!
I have some concerns with the files listed below.
1. The SilkIconSet images are licensed under CC-attribution 2.5
license. The NOTICE needs to accommodate the comment from the source
file:
"All I ask is that you include a link back to this page in your
credits."
Something like:
SilkIconSet (C) Mark James. http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/
2. fckconfig.js can be licensed under any of several licenses, but you
have to choose one of them and include which one in the NOTICE and
then copy the entire license into the LICENSE. The MPL 1.1 or later is
explicitly mentioned, and since there have been issues with MPL 1.1,
I'd suggest choosing MPL 2.0 in which these issues have been resolved.
For example:
fckconfig.js Copyright (C) 2003-2008 Frederico Caldeira Knabben
licensed under the terms of Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 http://http
://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0
3. mootools.js
The source contains a problematic comment: "MIT Style License". But
the web site says "MooTools is released under the Open SourceMIT
license, which gives you the possibility to use it and modify it in
every circumstance".
So, I'd go with:
mootools.js Copyright (c) 2006 Valerio Proietti, <http://
mad4milk.net>, licensed under the terms of the MIT license http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
4. posteditor.js
Looking at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-jspwiki-dev/201204.mbox/%3C701083845.7526.1335706069329.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org%3E
it's not clear whether posteditor.js is even part of the release any
more?
5. Some other contents of NOTICE are not enlightening. For example,
OSCache Copyright (c) 2001 The OpenSymphony Group. All rights reserved.
The "All rights reserved" doesn't actually grant us any rights. The
license under which we are using the files needs to be explicit.
Similarly for all the other projects with "All rights reserved".
6. The LICENSE file needs to copy verbatim all of the licenses for all
of the projects that we are including. I notice that in the docs/
LICENSE.* you have reproduced many of the licenses in use, but these
should be put either into the top level LICENSE file or in a LICENSE
file where the code is actually located in the source tree. The former
is my advice.
Craig
On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:31 PM, juanpablo@apache.org wrote:
> Modified: incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml?rev=1396339&r1=1396338&r2=1396339&view=diff
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> ======================================================================
> --- incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml (original)
> +++ incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml Tue Oct 9 21:31:17 2012
> @@ -1703,8 +1703,8 @@ To automate the JAR signing processs, yo
>
> <report reportFile="${doc.rat}/rat.txt" addLicenseHeaders="true">
> <fileset dir="src/org"/>
> - <fileset dir="src/webdocs" excludes="**/*.js">
> - </fileset>
> + <fileset dir="src/webdocs"
> + excludes="**/SilkIconSet-readme.txt,**/
> fckconfig.js,**/mootools.js,**/posteditor.js" />
> <fileset dir="tests/org"/>
> </report>
> </target>
>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Oracle
http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Rat report
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos RodrÃguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi Craig,
just committed some changes to address those concerns:
- issues #1 and #2: added into NOTICE/LICENSE
- #3: that comment is most probably there because it is a minified version,
anyway, I've added the appropiate text in NOTICE
- #4: more or less, the same issue as #3. We contacted the author and asked
him to explicitly state the license, which was done soon after. The file is
still used although we may switch to other alternatives in the future. The
whole history can be tracked at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-382
- #5: removed the "All rights reserved" text and explicitly stated all
types of licenses in the NOTICE file.
- #6: included all the licenses verbatim in the main LICENSE file. Really
long file there. Also, I've noticed some jars' versions where incorrect and
in some cases the license had also changed (for instance jetty is licensed
under AL2.0 now) so, I updated that too.
Hope that all is fine now, thanks for looking into this!
br,
juan pablo
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig L Russell
<cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
> Hi Juan Pablo,
>
> The license update is looking very good. Thanks for pitching in and doing
> all this heavy lifting!
>
> I have some concerns with the files listed below.
>
> 1. The SilkIconSet images are licensed under CC-attribution 2.5 license.
> The NOTICE needs to accommodate the comment from the source file:
>
> "All I ask is that you include a link back to this page in your credits."
>
> Something like:
>
> SilkIconSet (C) Mark James. http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/**icons/silk/<http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/>
>
> 2. fckconfig.js can be licensed under any of several licenses, but you
> have to choose one of them and include which one in the NOTICE and then
> copy the entire license into the LICENSE. The MPL 1.1 or later is
> explicitly mentioned, and since there have been issues with MPL 1.1, I'd
> suggest choosing MPL 2.0 in which these issues have been resolved.
>
> For example:
>
> fckconfig.js Copyright (C) 2003-2008 Frederico Caldeira Knabben licensed
> under the terms of Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 http://
> http://www.mozilla.org/**MPL/2.0 <http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0>
>
> 3. mootools.js
>
> The source contains a problematic comment: "MIT Style License". But the
> web site says "MooTools is released under the Open SourceMIT license, which
> gives you the possibility to use it and modify it in every circumstance".
>
> So, I'd go with:
>
> mootools.js Copyright (c) 2006 Valerio Proietti, <http://mad4milk.net>,
> licensed under the terms of the MIT license http://opensource.org/**
> licenses/mit-license.php <http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php>
>
> 4. posteditor.js
>
> Looking at http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-**
> jspwiki-dev/201204.mbox/%**3C701083845.7526.**
> 1335706069329.JavaMail.tomcat@**hel.zones.apache.org%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-jspwiki-dev/201204.mbox/%3C701083845.7526.1335706069329.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org%3E>it's not clear whether posteditor.js is even part of the release any more?
>
> 5. Some other contents of NOTICE are not enlightening. For example,
>
> OSCache Copyright (c) 2001 The OpenSymphony Group. All rights reserved.
>
> The "All rights reserved" doesn't actually grant us any rights. The
> license under which we are using the files needs to be explicit.
>
> Similarly for all the other projects with "All rights reserved".
>
> 6. The LICENSE file needs to copy verbatim all of the licenses for all of
> the projects that we are including. I notice that in the docs/LICENSE.* you
> have reproduced many of the licenses in use, but these should be put either
> into the top level LICENSE file or in a LICENSE file where the code is
> actually located in the source tree. The former is my advice.
>
> Craig
>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:31 PM, juanpablo@apache.org wrote:
>
> Modified: incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**xml
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**
>> xml?rev=1396339&r1=1396338&r2=**1396339&view=diff<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml?rev=1396339&r1=1396338&r2=1396339&view=diff>
>> ==============================**==============================**
>> ==================
>> --- incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**xml (original)
>> +++ incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**xml Tue Oct 9 21:31:17 2012
>> @@ -1703,8 +1703,8 @@ To automate the JAR signing processs, yo
>>
>> <report reportFile="${doc.rat}/rat.**txt" addLicenseHeaders="true">
>> <fileset dir="src/org"/>
>> - <fileset dir="src/webdocs" excludes="**/*.js">
>> - </fileset>
>> + <fileset dir="src/webdocs"
>> + excludes="**/SilkIconSet-**readme.txt,**/fckconfig.js,**/
>> **mootools.js,**/posteditor.js" />
>> <fileset dir="tests/org"/>
>> </report>
>> </target>
>>
>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.**com <Cr...@oracle.com>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.**org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>
>
Re: Rat report
Posted by Juan Pablo Santos RodrÃguez <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi Craig,
just committed some changes to address those concerns:
- issues #1 and #2: added into NOTICE/LICENSE
- #3: that comment is most probably there because it is a minified version,
anyway, I've added the appropiate text in NOTICE
- #4: more or less, the same issue as #3. We contacted the author and asked
him to explicitly state the license, which was done soon after. The file is
still used although we may switch to other alternatives in the future. The
whole history can be tracked at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-382
- #5: removed the "All rights reserved" text and explicitly stated all
types of licenses in the NOTICE file.
- #6: included all the licenses verbatim in the main LICENSE file. Really
long file there. Also, I've noticed some jars' versions where incorrect and
in some cases the license had also changed (for instance jetty is licensed
under AL2.0 now) so, I updated that too.
Hope that all is fine now, thanks for looking into this!
br,
juan pablo
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Craig L Russell
<cr...@oracle.com>wrote:
> Hi Juan Pablo,
>
> The license update is looking very good. Thanks for pitching in and doing
> all this heavy lifting!
>
> I have some concerns with the files listed below.
>
> 1. The SilkIconSet images are licensed under CC-attribution 2.5 license.
> The NOTICE needs to accommodate the comment from the source file:
>
> "All I ask is that you include a link back to this page in your credits."
>
> Something like:
>
> SilkIconSet (C) Mark James. http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/**icons/silk/<http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/>
>
> 2. fckconfig.js can be licensed under any of several licenses, but you
> have to choose one of them and include which one in the NOTICE and then
> copy the entire license into the LICENSE. The MPL 1.1 or later is
> explicitly mentioned, and since there have been issues with MPL 1.1, I'd
> suggest choosing MPL 2.0 in which these issues have been resolved.
>
> For example:
>
> fckconfig.js Copyright (C) 2003-2008 Frederico Caldeira Knabben licensed
> under the terms of Mozilla Public License Version 2.0 http://
> http://www.mozilla.org/**MPL/2.0 <http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0>
>
> 3. mootools.js
>
> The source contains a problematic comment: "MIT Style License". But the
> web site says "MooTools is released under the Open SourceMIT license, which
> gives you the possibility to use it and modify it in every circumstance".
>
> So, I'd go with:
>
> mootools.js Copyright (c) 2006 Valerio Proietti, <http://mad4milk.net>,
> licensed under the terms of the MIT license http://opensource.org/**
> licenses/mit-license.php <http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php>
>
> 4. posteditor.js
>
> Looking at http://mail-archives.apache.**org/mod_mbox/incubator-**
> jspwiki-dev/201204.mbox/%**3C701083845.7526.**
> 1335706069329.JavaMail.tomcat@**hel.zones.apache.org%3E<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-jspwiki-dev/201204.mbox/%3C701083845.7526.1335706069329.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org%3E>it's not clear whether posteditor.js is even part of the release any more?
>
> 5. Some other contents of NOTICE are not enlightening. For example,
>
> OSCache Copyright (c) 2001 The OpenSymphony Group. All rights reserved.
>
> The "All rights reserved" doesn't actually grant us any rights. The
> license under which we are using the files needs to be explicit.
>
> Similarly for all the other projects with "All rights reserved".
>
> 6. The LICENSE file needs to copy verbatim all of the licenses for all of
> the projects that we are including. I notice that in the docs/LICENSE.* you
> have reproduced many of the licenses in use, but these should be put either
> into the top level LICENSE file or in a LICENSE file where the code is
> actually located in the source tree. The former is my advice.
>
> Craig
>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:31 PM, juanpablo@apache.org wrote:
>
> Modified: incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**xml
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/**incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**
>> xml?rev=1396339&r1=1396338&r2=**1396339&view=diff<http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.xml?rev=1396339&r1=1396338&r2=1396339&view=diff>
>> ==============================**==============================**
>> ==================
>> --- incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**xml (original)
>> +++ incubator/jspwiki/trunk/build.**xml Tue Oct 9 21:31:17 2012
>> @@ -1703,8 +1703,8 @@ To automate the JAR signing processs, yo
>>
>> <report reportFile="${doc.rat}/rat.**txt" addLicenseHeaders="true">
>> <fileset dir="src/org"/>
>> - <fileset dir="src/webdocs" excludes="**/*.js">
>> - </fileset>
>> + <fileset dir="src/webdocs"
>> + excludes="**/SilkIconSet-**readme.txt,**/fckconfig.js,**/
>> **mootools.js,**/posteditor.js" />
>> <fileset dir="tests/org"/>
>> </report>
>> </target>
>>
>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Oracle
> http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@oracle.**com <Cr...@oracle.com>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.**org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>
>