On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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? And slightly weird that it's okay for Red Hat to distribute it themselves, both commercially and as open source from jboss.org, but it's questionable for Fedora. -- Iain. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
