[Bug 727152] Review Request: jboss-common-core - JBoss Common Classes

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727152

--- Comment #5 from Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> 2011-09-19 09:40:02 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Of course that field shouldn't contain ASL 2.0, but LGPLv2+. I used a template
> and this slipped by my attention. Does your comment apply even with that taken
> into account? As far as I have read, LGPLv2+ is a valid license.

Yes, based on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
because LGPLv2+ and ASL1.1 are "distinct, and independent licenses".
(Admittedly this rule is probably not strictly complied with in many Fedora
packages but I see some advantages to doing so for packages coming from JBoss.) 

I would argue that LGPLv2+ and ASL2.0 are not "distinct and independent" in
this Fedora sense, based on license compatibility; thus were JBossAS to rebase
the source files with ASL1.1 notices on  more recent (post-2004?) ASL2.0 Apache
versions of these files, which in at least some cases would probably require
only minimal changes, you could reasonably simplify the Fedora license
description to "LGPLv2+". But until that is done it should be "LGPLv2+ and
ASL1.1".

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.