Hi Tony On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 10:20 +0100, James Page wrote: > > There seem to be questions regarding the upstream source license. > The > > source files themselves don't mention a license, the pom.xml claims > > the > > MIT license, while the upstream homepage claims CDDL-1.0. Since the > > project some recent upstream activity, perhaps the author could > > clarify. > > Good spot; I think that a number of project on java.net now have > inconsistent project information - there was a large migration onto a > new platform early this year and I'm not sure all the information on > the > website is correct. > > I've raised a bug upstream and contacted Kohsuke (project owner) via > email to get this resolved. Resolved - Kohsuke has confirmed that the license should be MIT and has updated the java.net project site accordingly so should now be consistent. Cheers James -- James Page Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Team
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part