[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 #6 from Tomas Radej <tradej at redhat.com> 2011-09-19 09:57:30 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (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".

I am not sure if I made myself clear. I put the ASL license there by mistake.
It should have never been there as the package is licensed solely under
LGPLv2+. Was this the reason for the block?

-- 
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.