I am doing review of old/new package - visualvm [1]. It used to be part of openjdk until recently.
spec file contains multiple source tarballs. * netbeans-profiler-visualvm_release69.tar.gz contains dual-licensed files (GPLv2 with classpath exception or CDDL) * visualvm_harness-*tar - GPLv2 * visualvm_13-src.tar.gz - GPLv2+
The jars from profiler tarball are separate (files from it are not mixed into any other package, so classpath exception should be "working" as I understand it).
Harness tar is basically just configure scripts and build instructions.
visualvm_13-src contains the main application compiled using harness, the jars from profiler tar are used as plugins.
I'd say it's OK to have this mix, but I'd like to be sure about exact License tag that is appropriate here. Maybe:
License: GPLv2+ and (GPLv2 with classpath exception or CDDL)
Thanks,
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=640205
On 11/23/2010 10:04 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
I am doing review of old/new package - visualvm [1]. It used to be part of openjdk until recently.
spec file contains multiple source tarballs.
- netbeans-profiler-visualvm_release69.tar.gz contains dual-licensed
files (GPLv2 with classpath exception or CDDL)
- visualvm_harness-*tar - GPLv2
- visualvm_13-src.tar.gz - GPLv2+
The jars from profiler tarball are separate (files from it are not mixed into any other package, so classpath exception should be "working" as I understand it).
Harness tar is basically just configure scripts and build instructions.
visualvm_13-src contains the main application compiled using harness, the jars from profiler tar are used as plugins.
I'd say it's OK to have this mix, but I'd like to be sure about exact License tag that is appropriate here. Maybe:
The mix seems fine, but since the works are separate, I would use:
# Exception is classpath License: GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and (GPLv2 with exceptions or CDDL)
Thanks, ~tom
== Fedora Project
-
Stanislav Ochotnicky -
Tom Callaway