Return-Path: <adietish@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: mk@acc.umu.se
Delivered-To: mk@acc.umu.se
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by amavisd-new (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B7C7A3
	for <mk@acc.umu.se>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:25:32 +0100 (MET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at acc.umu.se
Received-SPF: Pass (sender SPF authorized) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.132.183.28; helo=mx1.redhat.com; envelope-from=adietish@redhat.com; receiver=mk@acc.umu.se 
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.acc.umu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AA757A2
	for <mk@acc.umu.se>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:25:28 +0100 (MET)
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39B18C0A8464
	for <mk@acc.umu.se>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 21:25:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-7-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.51])
	by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1QLPO6t013405;
	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:25:25 -0500
Subject: Re: License clarification regarding openshift-restclient-java version
 3.0.1
To: Marcus Karlsson <mk@acc.umu.se>
References: <20160225232618.GF2049@hirohito.acc.umu.se>
 <CAB+6sjQMWiXjUV3OjP1ctjzwuo=kdhG-QXL_Q3jFcNiZb730Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Cantrill <jcantril@redhat.com>, Max Andersen <manderse@redhat.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Dietisheim?= <adietish@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <56D0C2C4.6080409@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 22:25:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAB+6sjQMWiXjUV3OjP1ctjzwuo=kdhG-QXL_Q3jFcNiZb730Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------010601060300090009020104"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23

Hi Marcus

We simply forgot the add the header. It definitely is EPL as the header 
in the current version shows (we added the header when we noticed that 
it was missing):
https://github.com/openshift/openshift-restclient-java/blob/master/src/main/java/com/openshift/internal/restclient/model/DeploymentConfig.java 

Is this sufficient or do you need us to add the header in the version 
that you package?

Greetings
Andre

On 02/26/2016 01:42 PM, Jeff Cantrill wrote:
> Andre or Max,
>
> Are you able to comment regarding the licensing?
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Marcus Karlsson <mk@acc.umu.se 
> <mailto:mk@acc.umu.se>> wrote:
>
>     Hello Jeff.
>
>     My name is Marcus, I am a contributor to the Fedora project and I
>     am in
>     the process of packaging openshift-restclient-java for Fedora.
>
>     During package review [1] we found that one of the source files in the
>     version 3.0.1 release tarball [2] unlike the rest of them does not
>     have
>     license header:
>
>     src/main/java/com/openshift/internal/restclient/model/DeploymentConfig.java
>
>     I would like to ask you for a license clarification [3] regarding the
>     version of the file that shipped as part of the version 3.0.1
>     tarball. A
>     confirmation that the file is licensed under the Eclipse Public
>     License
>     v1.0 or a compatible license would be highly appreciated.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>                     Marcus
>
>     [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302144
>     [2]
>     https://github.com/openshift/openshift-restclient-java/archive/openshift-restclient-java-3.0.1.Final.tar.gz
>     [3]
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> --
> Jeff Cantrill
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat Engineering
> Red Hat, Inc.
> *Office*: 703-748-4420 | 866-546-8970 ext. 8162420
> jcantril@redhat.com <mailto:jcantril@redhat.com>
> http://www.redhat.com
