Hello,
I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?
Thanks in advance, Juan Hernandez
Le vendredi 24 février 2012 13:07:28 Juan Hernandez a écrit :
Hello,
I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?
It looks like "(CDDL or GPLv3) and ASL 2.0".
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Juan Hernandez wrote:
Hello,
I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?
That sounds like a potentially interesting issue actually. Can you inform of us of the specific package and the location of the source code?
- Richard
On 24/02/12 15:37, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Juan Hernandez wrote:
Hello,
I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?
That sounds like a potentially interesting issue actually. Can you inform of us of the specific package and the location of the source code?
Yes, the package is "jboss-el-2.2-api". I already create the bug to request review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797165
And the source code is available here:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 03:41:38PM +0100, Juan Hernandez wrote:
On 24/02/12 15:37, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Juan Hernandez wrote:
Hello,
I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?
That sounds like a potentially interesting issue actually. Can you inform of us of the specific package and the location of the source code?
Yes, the package is "jboss-el-2.2-api". I already create the bug to request review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797165
And the source code is available here:
This is now resolved. It is a bit puzzling but "CDDL" is the best license tag here.
- RF
Hi Richard,
this license is very pervasive in code from Sun/Oracle (glassfish, for example). It appears as if they copied code from Apache and then attached their headers to it, in some cases with very few changes (or none) to the original apache files.
see this:
http://markmail.org/message/gnjywbtf7yuqa56f
So basically, the original is ASLv2, then they added their dual CCDLorGPLv2 (actually,according to the logs of the files we looked at sun copied the files, then later remove the headers and replace them with CCDLorGPLv2,a nd when they discovered the error added to (I think) all the files the APLv2 to those files.
--dmg
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Juan Hernandez wrote:
Hello,
I came accross the attached header in the source files for a package I am working on. What is the correct license tag for that? I guess that it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 or ASL 2.0". Is that correct?
That sounds like a potentially interesting issue actually. Can you inform of us of the specific package and the location of the source code?
- Richard
legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
-
dmg -
juan.hernandez＠redhat.com -
Laurent Rineau -
Richard Fontana