The Spring framework is yet another package that has way too many dependencies. The com.oreilly.servlet (COS) package is a "must have" class library for servlet developers. There are classes to help servlets handle file uploads, generate multipart responses (server push), parse parameters, negotiate locales for internationalization, return files, manage socket connections, and act as RMI servers, as well as a class to help applets communicate with servlets. Since the first release, there are also new classes to help servlets send email messages, cache responses, and auto-detect servlet API support. The latest version is available online (with javadoc documentation) for download from http://www.servlets.com.
Created attachment 61888 [details] cos-20021105.ebuild I had troubles getting one of the files to compile, due to changes in the servlet api... so I just deleted the source file. It doesn't seem to be used by spring, so I don't mind.. License is at http://servlets.com/cos/license.html
*** Bug 97010 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Now maintained in the experimental overlay: https://gentooexperimental.org/svn/java/gentoo-java-experimental/dev-java/cos/
This package has a fun little clause in the license: 4. The distribution is not part of a software development kit, operating system, other library, or a development tool without written permission from the copyright holder.
(In reply to comment #4) > This package has a fun little clause in the license: > 4. The distribution is not part of a software development kit, operating > system, other library, or a development tool without written permission from > the copyright holder. > 1. You redistribute the package in object code form only (as Java .class files or a .jar file containing the .class files) and only as part of a product that uses the classes as part of its primary functionality. Well we are not allowed to distribute the source any way.
I have just received an email from the developer, giving the Gentoo project permission to redistribute the cos package. I have forwarded this to nichoj. :)
Here is the email that I received from the maintainer of cos. I will post the content here plus attach the full version (headers and all) ------[EMAIL]--------- Hi Alistair, That sounds fine, assuming you download the license file as well in a manner where it can easily be found. -jh- Alistair Bush wrote: > Hi I am presently wishing to package your cos library for the Gentoo > Linux distro as it is a dependency of the Stripes framework. > > Stripes has been given permission by you to distribute the cos library > and as you maybe well aware linux distributions require that libraries > are not bundled within other packages. I therefore ask that the same > priviledge be extended to the Gentoo Linux Project so that the cos > library can be mirrored on our servers. > > Packages within Gentoo are simple bash files that include information > such as the URL's to important files and in the case of cos will just > download and copy the cos jar into a specific location on the users system. > > As I am not an official member of gentoo linux please contact me, > nichoj@gentoo.org <mailto:nichoj@gentoo.org> (The Leader of the Java > Herd at Gentoo) or the mailing list gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org > <mailto:gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org> if you have anymore inquiries. > > > Thanks > > Alistair Bush > > www.gentoo.org <http://www.gentoo.org> > >
Created attachment 108090 [details] Email allowing exception to licence This is the full email (headers and all) the states that the gentoo project is able to mirror the cos library
You might want to follow up to see if you _have_ to download the license, or is it enough for it to live on the filesystem, ie /usr/portage/licenses
I have just received word from upstream and he accepts the licence being stored in /usr/portage/licences. I will upload the email tonight, but it seems that he is perfectly happy as long as the file is available to the user (ie He doesn't care about how the licence is available ) Just for completeness his response >>>> What I'm hearing is that the license file is always on the system if cos.jar is on the system, and it's in a well known place, and if that's correct then it's fine. This does beg the question. Is a user able to opt out of syncing the licence directory?
(In reply to comment #10) > This does beg the question. Is a user able to opt out of syncing the licence > directory? Probably yes, but I guess it's his own responsibility then. Plus, we can always install it to /usr/share/doc/... via dodoc, easily especially if it's part of the unpacked distfile too.
Finally added. Thanks to Alistair for doing the legwork to work out the licensing issues.
