You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@commons.apache.org by sebb <se...@gmail.com> on 2010/06/09 20:19:04 UTC
Re: [jira] Commented: (MATH-375) Elementary functions in JDK are
slower than necessary and not as accurate as they could be.
On 09/06/2010, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> Le 09/06/2010 18:59, William Rossi (JIRA) a écrit :
>
> >
> > [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-375?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12877132#action_12877132 ]
> >
> > William Rossi commented on MATH-375:
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > I'm not as well versed in these copyright issues I as I should be, but my
> > understanding is that as the copyright holder of the dfp library, I could
> > dual license it. In any event, dfp is not required by the software, its
> > only used in the supporting test cases.
>
>
> If it is used in the test cases, it should be included in the source
> release (which are what Apache promotes) and hence should be published
> with an Apache compatible license like Apache Software License V2 (of
> course) but also BSD for example.
>
We don't include binaries (jars) in source releases.
Commons uses Maven, so normally jars are resolved from the Central repo.
Apache releases can have optional dependencies on LGPL.
So if there were other tests, then IMO the tests that depend on dfp
could be made optional.
But ideally the jar should be licensed using one of the "category A or
B" licenses in
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
> > Which also why I whould be hesitant to assign copyright to ASF, if I were
> > to do that and ASF decides not to persue the project then I'm left with
> > nothing. By maintaining the copyright, I can issue licenses to other
> > parties as I see fit.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> >
> > The ASF software grant agreement doesn't ask me to assign copyright to
> > ASF, but to mearly agree to specific license terms.
>
>
> You are right, the foundation does not ask for the copyright, it only
> requires a license allowing it to redistribute the code under the terms
> of the Apache Software License V2. The copyright still belongs to you.
>
> One minor glitch is that in the commons projects, we prefer not to have
> @author javadoc tags in the source but rather the names placed in the
> contributor section of the pom file (and hence publickly acknowledged in
> an automatically built page on the component site) and possibly in the
> NOTICE.txt file.
Huh?
This does not apply to the dfp code - it is a binary library dependency.
Re: [jira] Commented: (MATH-375) Elementary functions in JDK are
slower than necessary and not as accurate as they could be.
Posted by Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr>.
Le 09/06/2010 20:19, sebb a écrit :
> On 09/06/2010, Luc Maisonobe <Lu...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Le 09/06/2010 18:59, William Rossi (JIRA) a écrit :
>>
>>>
>> > [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-375?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12877132#action_12877132 ]
>> >
>> > William Rossi commented on MATH-375:
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not as well versed in these copyright issues I as I should be, but my
>> > understanding is that as the copyright holder of the dfp library, I could
>> > dual license it. In any event, dfp is not required by the software, its
>> > only used in the supporting test cases.
>>
>>
>> If it is used in the test cases, it should be included in the source
>> release (which are what Apache promotes) and hence should be published
>> with an Apache compatible license like Apache Software License V2 (of
>> course) but also BSD for example.
>>
>
> We don't include binaries (jars) in source releases.
> Commons uses Maven, so normally jars are resolved from the Central repo.
>
> Apache releases can have optional dependencies on LGPL.
>
> So if there were other tests, then IMO the tests that depend on dfp
> could be made optional.
>
> But ideally the jar should be licensed using one of the "category A or
> B" licenses in
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>> >
>> > Which also why I whould be hesitant to assign copyright to ASF, if I were
>> > to do that and ASF decides not to persue the project then I'm left with
>> > nothing. By maintaining the copyright, I can issue licenses to other
>> > parties as I see fit.
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The ASF software grant agreement doesn't ask me to assign copyright to
>> > ASF, but to mearly agree to specific license terms.
>>
>>
>> You are right, the foundation does not ask for the copyright, it only
>> requires a license allowing it to redistribute the code under the terms
>> of the Apache Software License V2. The copyright still belongs to you.
>>
>> One minor glitch is that in the commons projects, we prefer not to have
>> @author javadoc tags in the source but rather the names placed in the
>> contributor section of the pom file (and hence publickly acknowledged in
>> an automatically built page on the component site) and possibly in the
>> NOTICE.txt file.
>
> Huh?
> This does not apply to the dfp code - it is a binary library dependency.
I didn't have a look yet, thought it was another java source package.
Luc