Bug 426800

Summary:	Revisit license of java-virtuals
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Ralph Sennhauser (RETIRED) <sera>
Component:	[OLD] Java	Assignee:	Java team <java>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED
Severity:	normal
Priority:	Normal
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---
Bug Depends on:
Bug Blocks:	437162

Description Ralph Sennhauser (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2012-07-16 08:26:20 UTC

Currently ebuilds in java-virtuals are either using as-is or GPL-2 for the virtuals "package.env". We should use the same license for all and neither of the current seems a particularly good choice.


13:02:23 <ulm> sera: if they write files to disk then they need a license
13:03:27 <ulm> and java-virtuals-2.eclass exports src_install
13:05:14 <sera> ulm: right, so the question now is which to use.
13:09:39 <ulm> sera: aren't the files trivial?
13:10:38 <sera> ulm: they are
13:10:49 <sera> just some variables
13:11:55 <ulm> public-domain then
13:12:34 <ulm> or MIT, BSD-2, WTFPL-2, No-Problem-Bugroff if a license is really needed
13:14:21 <sera> do WTFPL-2, No-Problem-Bugroff exist? :)
13:15:29 <ulm> hm, looks like No-Problem-Bugroff was removed :(
13:15:38 <ulm> but WTFPL-2 is in licenses/
13:15:56 <ulm> very simple license :)
13:16:26 <sera> great read :)
13:17:16 <sera> ulm: thanks


Are there any preferences for either of public-domain, MIT, BSD-2 or WTFPL-2?


An example of what gets installed per virtual:
$ cat /usr/share/java-config-2/virtuals/servlet-api-3.0 
PROVIDERS="tomcat-servlet-api-3.0 resin-servlet-api-3.0"
MULTI_PROVIDER="FALSE"

Comment 1 Ralph Sennhauser (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2012-10-04 17:56:41 UTC

With "as-is" no longer being in the @FREE license group, see bug 437162, there is now an immediate need to change many. Going with public-license as suggested by ulm for all java-virtuals.