On 06/03/2010 11:54 AM, Iain Arnell wrote: > 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. I can't speak on what Red Hat does on a larger scale. I do know that it is important to me and Fedora that we do it properly, or not at all. ~spot -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
