On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/03/2010 10:33 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: >> On 06/01/2010 05:09 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> >>> On 05/29/2010 07:25 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: >>>> JBoss[1] is still a *big* deficit. Potential for f14/15 ? >>> >>> I'm pretty sure JBoss is still a no-go because of poor licensing, >>> specifically: >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479598 >> >> That is a nonsense. >> >> JBoss is stalled because it depends on a package with: >> >> - incompatible license >> - six years old >> - dead upstream >> >> :-? > > This is true (well, the problem is that there is no applicable and valid > license, not so much that it is incompatible), no matter how absurd it > might seem. > > In general, Java licensing is... poor at best. This is admittedly a > rather confusing case, but still. > This seems really dangerous. If JBoss has an unclear legal status due to this, perhaps aopalliance needs to be reimplemented from scratch, or JBoss should not depend on it? -- Michel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
