Hi all,
thank you for your work! May I suggest the following improvement for the license header.
At the moment, the license header is as follows.
|
/* |
|
* Copyright (c) 1997, 2023 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. |
|
* |
|
* This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the |
|
* terms of the Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0, which is available at |
|
* http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php. |
|
* |
|
* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause |
|
*/ |
This header is unclear and may confuse confusion as it states that the project is licensed under Eclipse Distributipn License v. 1.0, but the SPDX license identifier states the BSD-3-Clause. While the equivalence is stated at Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0
, it is not mentioned on the Open Source Initiative website for the BSD-3-Clause. This goes as far back as v1.2.1.
Based on this, may I suggest the following license header.
/*
* Copyright (c) 1997, 2018 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
*
* This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
* terms of the Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0, which is equivalent to the BSD-3-Clause.
* The license text is available at http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/edl-v10.php.
*
* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
*/
I am happy to open a PR myself if the new license header is approved.
Thank you in advance!
PS: The Website Libraries.io claims that the project is licensed under the Server Side Public License v1.0 (SSPL-1.0).
Hi all,
thank you for your work! May I suggest the following improvement for the license header.
At the moment, the license header is as follows.
jaf-api/api/src/main/java/jakarta/activation/ActivationDataFlavor.java
Lines 1 to 9 in dd51393
This header is unclear and may confuse confusion as it states that the project is licensed under
Eclipse Distributipn License v. 1.0, but theSPDXlicense identifier states theBSD-3-Clause. While the equivalence is stated at Eclipse Distribution License - v 1.0, it is not mentioned on the Open Source Initiative website for the
BSD-3-Clause. This goes as far back asv1.2.1.Based on this, may I suggest the following license header.
I am happy to open a
PRmyself if the new license header is approved.Thank you in advance!
PS: The Website
Libraries.ioclaims that the project is licensed under the Server Side Public License v1.0 (SSPL-1.0).