You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2010/05/01 00:37:38 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release Tomcat 7.0.0 based on Tomcat 7.0.0 RC1
On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 14/04/2010 21:31, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 14/04/2010 21:06, sebb wrote:
>>> 2 files in BCEL have IBM headers; these headers are presumably OK, but
>>> the NOTICE file probably needs to mention IBM. Not sure why the BCEL
>>> source archive does not do so in its NOTICE file. That might be an
>>> error.
>> Hmm. I might be able to strip down what we use from BCEL to get rid of
>> those.
>
> Easier said than done. I'll add the necessary updates to LICENSE & NOTICE.
I'm assuming that this vote has been cancelled. And apologies for jumping in so late -- just read this thread (motivated by discussion on geronimo dev list).
IMO, these files are not valid source files for an Apache release. I see the two files in question were/are CPL licensed and you have elected to distribute the files under EPL, instead. Either license seems problematic. So, I'm not sure why it would matter... Both licenses are Category B licenses (according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ). Unless you feel this source falls under the Category B exemption (which I don't think they do), they should not be included in a release:
"For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification."
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Tomcat 7.0.0 based on Tomcat 7.0.0 RC1
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 01/05/2010 22:08, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On May 1, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Thanks for the review. My bad. I saw we are using EPL for the JDT
>> compiler and assumed we'd be fine for this to. I'll see what I can do to
>> work around it or get the license changed.
>
> No problem. The issue seems to have originated in BCEL...
>
> David Jencks chased down some of the history...
>
> On Apr 30, 2010, at 5:40 PM, David Jencks wrote:
<snip/>
>> I'm having some trouble interpreting bcel svn history but I think these were added in rev 411580 as part of a GSOC project.
>
> I work for IBM and as IBM seems to be the original copyright holder, maybe can get a relicensed version of the files contributed. Once we track down the history of the file, will see what can be done...
I've got a little further. A google code search indicated that the files
may have originated in AspectJ and the the Andy Clements listed in the
header may be the same Andy Clements that now works for
SpringSource/VMWare (as do I). I contacted Andy yesterday and he
confirmed that is indeed the case.
My concern at this point is that the GSoC contribution to BCEL may have
licensing issues. My next steps are going to be:
- Make the Jakarta PMC aware of this. That discussion will start on the
Jakarta dev list.
- Work with Andy to determine if there is an issue and if there is, how
big of an issue there is. That will happen over internal mail at
SpringSource with regular updates to the Jakarta dev list.
- Review Tomcat's use of BCEL to determine what the options are if there
is an issue with BCEL.
Any Tomcat 7 release is on hold until this issue is resolved.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Tomcat 7.0.0 based on Tomcat 7.0.0 RC1
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 1, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review. My bad. I saw we are using EPL for the JDT
> compiler and assumed we'd be fine for this to. I'll see what I can do to
> work around it or get the license changed.
No problem. The issue seems to have originated in BCEL...
David Jencks chased down some of the history...
On Apr 30, 2010, at 5:40 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Mark Thomas changed the license in rev 934219 on april 14 2010. That change and rev 934220 seem to indicate that the tomcat community thinks including EPL source in apache svn and releases is fine. The tomcat copies are modified from the bcel "originals" including:
>
> - changing the package name (rev 887296, 887302) (this could be done with maven-shade-plugin from binaries, were they to have been aleady released which AFAICT they aren't)
> - removing unused methods ( rev 887610, 887613)
>
> These seem to me to be functional modifications and so decidedly outside the acceptable uses of CPL/EPL licensed source in apache.
>
> These files aren't in the latest bcel tag. As seen below the bcel source has the CPL license. BCEL needs to fix this, right?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bcel/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/bcel/classfile/EnclosingMethod.java
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/bcel/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/bcel/classfile/LocalVariableTypeTable.java
>
> I'm having some trouble interpreting bcel svn history but I think these were added in rev 411580 as part of a GSOC project.
I work for IBM and as IBM seems to be the original copyright holder, maybe can get a relicensed version of the files contributed. Once we track down the history of the file, will see what can be done...
--kevan
Re: [VOTE] Release Tomcat 7.0.0 based on Tomcat 7.0.0 RC1
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 30/04/2010 23:37, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 5:41 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2010 21:31, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2010 21:06, sebb wrote:
>>>> 2 files in BCEL have IBM headers; these headers are presumably OK, but
>>>> the NOTICE file probably needs to mention IBM. Not sure why the BCEL
>>>> source archive does not do so in its NOTICE file. That might be an
>>>> error.
>>> Hmm. I might be able to strip down what we use from BCEL to get rid of
>>> those.
>>
>> Easier said than done. I'll add the necessary updates to LICENSE & NOTICE.
>
>
> I'm assuming that this vote has been cancelled. And apologies for jumping in so late -- just read this thread (motivated by discussion on geronimo dev list).
It was, but I didn't make it official. I'll do that in a sec.
> IMO, these files are not valid source files for an Apache release. I see the two files in question were/are CPL licensed and you have elected to distribute the files under EPL, instead. Either license seems problematic. So, I'm not sure why it would matter... Both licenses are Category B licenses (according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html ). Unless you feel this source falls under the Category B exemption (which I don't think they do), they should not be included in a release:
>
> "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification."
Thanks for the review. My bad. I saw we are using EPL for the JDT
compiler and assumed we'd be fine for this to. I'll see what I can do to
work around it or get the license changed.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org