You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Cameron McCormack <ca...@mcc.id.au> on 2006/11/17 04:33:16 UTC
Third party license text
Hi all.
The new release rules[1] say:
If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It
Contain Several License Files?
No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE
file.
When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the
LICENSE file should contain details of all these licenses. For each
component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and
the license under which the component is distributed should be
appended to the LICENSE file.
but does this also apply to bundled binaries (like Batik’s lib/js.jar),
or just included source files (like sources/org/w3c/dom/svg/SVGRect.java
— although I’m going to move across to using the xml-apis-ext.jar from
XML Commons for these files)? So, should all of Batik’s lib/LICENSE.*
and lib/build/LICENSE.* contents be moved into the one LICENSE file?
Thanks,
Cameron
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
--
Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
xmpp:heycam@jabber.org ▪ ICQ 26955922 ▪ MSN cam@mcc.id.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Third party license text
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
On 17.11.2006 09:46:14 Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki:
> > Concerning xml-apis-ext.jar, please keep in mind that I was only able to
> > move them into a branch that has never been touched by anyone else than
> > me. Without the backing of you Batik guys I lost the motivation to
> > actively pursue this any further. The first thing that would have to be
> > done is to go to the XML Commons mailing list and sort out the problem
> > with the branch. I cannot be that those sources are just deposited in
> > that branch for ever, without being accepted by the other "clients" of
> > xml-apis.jar" and without a release of XML Commons including the
> > xml-apis-ext.jar. If this cannot be done properly there, you'll have to
> > keep the sources in Batik but I'd strongly suggest that you separate
> > them from the main source tree if only to stress the point that those
> > sources are not ALv2 licensed.
>
> Its likely still a problem that DOM 3 Events is still a Working Draft.
> I have a feeling the XML Commons people wouldnt want to release them
> since they may still change.
Right, that one. Hmm, how about pushing them to release without DOM 3
Events and include those in Batik (src/external)? Not a very clean
approach but at least it would open the way to include those sources in
XML Commons for the long term. Just a thought.
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Third party license text
Posted by Cameron McCormack <ca...@mcc.id.au>.
Jeremias Maerki:
> Concerning xml-apis-ext.jar, please keep in mind that I was only able to
> move them into a branch that has never been touched by anyone else than
> me. Without the backing of you Batik guys I lost the motivation to
> actively pursue this any further. The first thing that would have to be
> done is to go to the XML Commons mailing list and sort out the problem
> with the branch. I cannot be that those sources are just deposited in
> that branch for ever, without being accepted by the other "clients" of
> xml-apis.jar" and without a release of XML Commons including the
> xml-apis-ext.jar. If this cannot be done properly there, you'll have to
> keep the sources in Batik but I'd strongly suggest that you separate
> them from the main source tree if only to stress the point that those
> sources are not ALv2 licensed.
It’s likely still a problem that DOM 3 Events is still a Working Draft.
I have a feeling the XML Commons people wouldn’t want to release them
since they may still change.
--
Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
xmpp:heycam@jabber.org ▪ ICQ 26955922 ▪ MSN cam@mcc.id.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Third party license text
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
This only refers to source files, i.e. the W3C-licensed sources and any
other source files that may not be ASF-licensed. For external,
pre-compiled dependencies (JAR files) Batik is fine with the current
scheme of stating the licenses.
Concerning xml-apis-ext.jar, please keep in mind that I was only able to
move them into a branch that has never been touched by anyone else than
me. Without the backing of you Batik guys I lost the motivation to
actively pursue this any further. The first thing that would have to be
done is to go to the XML Commons mailing list and sort out the problem
with the branch. I cannot be that those sources are just deposited in
that branch for ever, without being accepted by the other "clients" of
xml-apis.jar" and without a release of XML Commons including the
xml-apis-ext.jar. If this cannot be done properly there, you'll have to
keep the sources in Batik but I'd strongly suggest that you separate
them from the main source tree if only to stress the point that those
sources are not ALv2 licensed.
Generally, I'd update the README file a little to do the same as I've
done in FOP: stating where exactly all the information about licensing
can be found. ATM, you're only mentioning the LICENSE file in there.
I've also written a README.txt in the lib directory which lists all
dependencies. That will make it easier for users to determine which
license overall apply to a project using Apache Batik.
On 17.11.2006 04:33:16 Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> The new release rules[1] say:
>
> If A Distribution Contains Code Under Several Licenses, Should It
> Contain Several License Files?
>
> No - all license information should be contained in the LICENSE
> file.
>
> When a distribution contains code under several licenses, the
> LICENSE file should contain details of all these licenses. For each
> component which is not Apache licensed, details of the component and
> the license under which the component is distributed should be
> appended to the LICENSE file.
>
> but does this also apply to bundled binaries (like Batiks lib/js.jar),
> or just included source files (like sources/org/w3c/dom/svg/SVGRect.java
> although Im going to move across to using the xml-apis-ext.jar from
> XML Commons for these files)? So, should all of Batiks lib/LICENSE.*
> and lib/build/LICENSE.* contents be moved into the one LICENSE file?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Cameron
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache XML Graphics Project URL: http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org