[Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?

From: Markus Karg <>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:12:27 +0200

Didn't say *I* want to remove anything, but just said that the CDDL tag
*must* be removed from the source code files then, as a reaction to
someone saying he wanted to be able to provide a GPL-only fork.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Heavon-Jones []
Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 16:52
Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?

Why would you need to remove CDDL from source?

The link to NetBeans was not meant to provide a sample for use in court
but as an indication that reuse can be limited to the liberties provided
by one of the licenses.

I think the term Sun\Oracle use is "Dual License" -


On 12/04/2011, at 3:40 PM, Markus Karg wrote:

> Cam,
> unfortunately your assumption is not correct in most countries. No
> to be a lawer. Things are just simple as this: Unless Oracle
> allows you to remove the CDDL tags from the source, the CDDL applies
> your fork, still. It is written nowhere that *you* can choose for one
> the licences. So it is common sense that it *us* a union unless you
> Oracle's written permission to split licences. About your NetBeans
> sample: Jersey is not NetBeans, and Oracle might have different
> interests in different products. And, "Propose" does not mean
> or "Grants".
> Regards
> Markus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cameron Heavon-Jones []
> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 16:30
> To:
> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
> IANAL (or Oracle :) but....
> If you want to *contribute* to Jersey it makes sense that
> are covered by all licenses.
> For a for fork, the code is provided under GPL and provides the
> to modify and redistribute as GPL. Any attempt at changing the
> inalienable rights provided by GPL would make it incompatible with the
> GPL and defeat the point of licensing under GPL.
> if this is wrong it would be good to have clarification. Looking at
> netbeans project tho:
> "Sun proposes to introduce GPLv2 with Classpath exception for NetBeans
> software as a second license option along with CDDL."
> I note the use of "option".
> cam
> On 12/04/2011, at 3:10 PM, Markus Karg wrote:
>> I also thought so but Oracle told me that if I want to contribute
>> something, then it IS a union and I MUST accept CDDL and sign a
>> contract. Also, I do not see where the CDDL allows to just remove it.
>> The licence applies to every copy until Oracle allows you to remove
> it.
>> Can you please point me to the lines in the CDDL where it says that
> you
>> can remove it as soon as you don't want to keep it in your fork?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cameron Heavon-Jones []
>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 16:06
>> To:
>> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>> The CDDL is for common development on the Jersey project, not
>> There is nothing stoping GPL from being forked and the fork can even
> be
>> kept private as long as it's not distributed.
>> I understand the CDDL + GPL as an either\or choice, not a union.
>> cam
>> On 12/04/2011, at 2:55 PM, Markus Karg wrote:
>>> That would make sense if lots of users would want to maintain forks
>>> while still accepting CDDL. How much users do want to do that?
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tom Schindl []
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 15:53
>>> To:
>>> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>> For me its exactly the opposite the more controlled a project is the
>>> better it is to use DVCS because if the one big player is refusing
>>> integrate my patch (because of whatever reason) it is much more
> easier
>>> to main my own fork and merge with HEAD every now and then.
>>> So +1 for git from me.
>>> Tom
>>> Am 12.04.11 15:47, schrieb Markus Karg:
>>>> That would make sense if it would be Jersey's target to be
>>>> controlled. But actually it is Oracle developed and with so few
>> people
>>>> that SVN is far from being exhausted. I do not see that there are
>>>> many community contributions that a centralized repository would be
>>>> needed. As long as every contributor has to sign a contract with
>>> Oracle
>>>> and support CDDL (instead of solely GPL or LGPL) I do not see that
>>>> Jersey would really become a community driven project. Currently
>>> Jersey
>>>> is an Oracle-only project and nothing that I have experienced so
>>>> would convince me that a change is really in progress.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Cameron Heavon-Jones []
>>>> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 15:41
>>>> To:
>>>> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>>> Workflow aside, a DVCS provides an infrastructure which is capable
> of
>>>> being developed and extended in an non-centralized way. That isn't
>>> about
>>>> having a decentralized software architecture but non-centralized
>>>> organizational control.
>>>> A GPL project should provision for community dissension and a DVCS
>>>> provides this as infrastructure.
>>>> cam
>>>> On 12/04/2011, at 2:01 PM, Mohan KR (mkannapa) wrote:
>>>>> + 1 SVN.
>>>>> I would echo the same comments, if the current workflow is
> supported
>>>> by SVN, why on earth would one
>>>>> want to switch to a DVCS. I have used both GIT/Hg, yeah I see the
>>>> benefits of local repositories for a
>>>>> really distributed teams. But if one is going to "centralize" it
>>>> (push/pull), to synchronize the "nodes", I say
>>>>> what's the point?
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mohan KR
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Marek Potociar []
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:31 AM
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Subject: [Jersey] SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
>>>>> Hey Folks,
>>>>> For Jersey 2.x we are considering to switch our VCS from SVN into
>> Git
>>>> or Mercurial. Sticking to SVN is still an option too. FWIW, here's
> my
>>>> take on the topic:
>>>>> - Functionality:
>>>>> SVN meets most of our existing needs today, I do miss the agile
>>> nature
>>>> of DVCS though and ability to fix a recent commit.
>>>>> I don't have a clear DVCS winner. Mercurial is compact and easier
> to
>>>> learn, esp. if one comes from the SVN background.
>>>>> It has superior branching and merging support compared to SVN.
>>>> branching concept however seems to be seriously flawed as it is
>>>> virtually impossible to delete named branches. Also, it is not as
>>>> flexible as Git and configuring it's extensions can be painful.
>>>>> Git is faster than Mercurial, super flexible, and "unix-like" set
> of
>>>> coherent tools sharing a common platform rather being one compact
>>> piece
>>>> of software. It is thus bendable to most esoteric work flows. Also
>>> it's
>>>> merging algorithm is ...wait for it... LEGENDARY! :) Learning to
>>>> full use of Git however requires time (and practice).
>>>>> - Documentation:
>>>>> SVN and Mercurial both seem to provide superior documentation
>>> compared
>>>> to Git.
>>>>> - Tooling:
>>>>> SVN has a great tooling support and so does Git. I don't have a
>>>> significant experience with Mercurial, but I suppose it will be on
>> par
>>>> with Git and SVN.
>>>>> - Adoption:
>>>>> SVN is very popular. Also Git appears to gain larger portion of
> mind
>>>> share every day. Git community is very active and visible, e.g.
>>>> is especially vibrant. It has almost 10x larger
>>>> than for Mercurial.
>>>>> Mercurial community seems to be both smaller and "quieter".
>>>>> So, what would you, members of the community, prefer to use going
>>>> forward?
>>>>> [ ] SVN
>>>>> [ ] Git
>>>>> [ ] Mercurial
>>>>> Please cast your votes!
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Marek