[Fedora-legal-list] What license should I use for javax.el-api

[Mark Wielaard]

On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 14:10 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 01:57 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > But I think that the intention of Oracle is for GPLV2 with exceptions
> > and ASL 2.0 to be a valid combination since that is what they use for
> > every project that combines GPLv2 (only) code with ASL 2.0 code (like
> > glassfish, netbeans, openjdk, etc.). So while choosing CDDL and ASL 2.0
> > in this case is technically a valid choice it seems nicer (more in line
> > with upstream) to leave the optional GPLv2 with exceptions choice intact.
> > If only because that is consistent with how other packages currently
> > do it and so you can more easily find this class of sources.
> 
> Oracle might intend for that to be their choice of licenses, but it is a
> terrible one, since GPLv2 only (with or without the exception) + ASL 2.0
> results in something where no one (besides the copyright holder(s)) can
> actually comply with the license terms.

Hmmm, that interpretation is somewhat troublesome. Oracle didn't invent
that exception (it comes from libgcj and GNU Classpath) and the intent
was that code under GPL+exception could be combined with non-GPL code
like the ASL.

Is this interpretation specific to the way this package combines
GPLv2-only+exception and ASL2 code in the same source files?

In other cases (and the original intent I believe) the ASL source code
is in separate independent files/packages from the GPL+exception source
code. That hopefully does qualify as "GPLv2 with exceptions and ASL2".

Thanks,

Mark