On Aug 4, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On 8/4/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I see it there are two kinds of questions I'm asking:
1. Are the 6 questionable jars (4 I already mentioned plus a servlet
spec jar with some retyped sun xsds and dtds) OK to release?
Obviously the geronimo PMC thought so but this conversation has
thrown that into doubt as far as I am concerned. Is there some
information you (or anyone else) would like in order to give an
opinion? I tried to explain the process used to generate these jars
and the thinking behind the process already. Note that none of these
jars start from the cddl licensed sun schemas, they all start from or
relate to the pre-cddl schemas. I don't see these questions as being
hypothetical, and I hope 6 jars isn't a dump truck. The servlet spec
jar under vote is at http://people.apache.org/~mcconne/geronimo-
servlet_2.5_spec-1.1.tar.gz. The vote passed but AFAICT it has not
yet been called or the artifact actually released.
Legally, yes.
Now onto the next question. Have you documented this in a way that
users of Geronimo codebase are aware of the composition of the
package? Given the answer below, I'll presume no; so let's move onto
the next problem. After we are done we can come back to this one.
Note that the jars under discussion all relate to the pre-cddl
licensed xsds, so I don't think the hypothetical questions following
(2) are relevant to these particular jars.
The jars containing source and compiled xmlbeans generated jars
include the standard ASL1 license and notice files. To the best of
our knowledge they dont contain any text such as comments from the
sun schemas (we recently discovered that the binary files generated
by xmlbeans by default contain the comments from the source and took
steps to configure xmlbeans to leave them out). I guess we could
include a comment explaining how we got them, but if the asl2
licensing is really correct I don't exactly see why that would be
required.
The servlet spec jar contains the standard apache license and notice
files and the hand-typed schemas start out similar to this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--
Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed
with
this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License,
Version 2.0
(the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
with
the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
-->
<xsd:schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
targetNamespace="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee";
xmlns:javaee="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee";
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
elementFormDefault="qualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified" version="2.5">
<!--
** This is the Web Application 2.5 XSD with only the
required elements to support an implementation.
** Please see http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-
app_2_5.xsd for a fully documented and latest
** XSD.
-->
If these files are legally OK, I can't see why we would need any
other notice. If they are not legally OK, then we need to change
them and figure out what kind of notice is appropriate. Our position
has been that the stripped down xsds are required to implement a
compliant javaee product, which we have a license to do, so the sun
legalese must be talking about the text bits that aren't needed and
we left out.
That's the state of the non-cddl-questions about the current
stuff ... onto the hypothetical future.
2. Hypothetically, starting from the cddl licensed schemas, what can
we generate from them, what can we include in apache svn and
releases, and what license is any of this under? The geronimo pmc
has previously thought that generated source was under asl. Craig is
claiming that generated source is cddl, however as I tried to explain
this point of view seems to me to lead to the entire server being
required to be cddl. In other words I think either Craig is wrong or
apache can't develop any javaee products. In addition I think
Craig's argument applied to the pre-cddl xsds would entirely prevent
apache releasing any j2ee or javaee products whatsoever.
So, the entire server is generated from these XSDs? Sweet! Must be
one kick ass generator. :-)
Let's assume for the moment that Craig is correct (I believe that
section 3.5(*) of the license contradicts this interpretation). Even
assuming that, how do you the leap from generated artifacts being CDDL
to entire server?
The only way I can make sense of Craig's argument is that the CDDL
applies to the information content of the schemas, not any particular
representation of that information content. As such any compliant
implementation has to include that information content throughout a
large part of its core functionality, so most of the source files are
going to need to be cddl licensed since they are going to contains
bits of that information content. If anyone thinks this isn't what
Craig's argument means, please explain how to draw the line between
cddl and non-cddl in the 5 examples I presented earlier.
Following onto 2, sometimes there are mistakes in the sun schemas
that, well, prevent using them directly in completely compliant
implementations. For instance the web-app-2.5.xsd had a incorrect
regular expression for http-method. Assuming we eventually do use
the cddl licensed schemas, and these are in publicly accessible
apache svn, can we fix these errors?
Legally, as long as you comply with the CDDL license (in particular,
note sections 3.1 and 3.3(*)), yes.
Now as to ASF policy; in general ASF SVN repositories are for the
development of code under the Apache License. I don't believe a few
files that are clearly marked would substantially change the fact that
the Geronimo SVN meets that criteria. If you do proceed to do this,
mention it in the next regularly scheduled board report and move on.
I think the latest sun web-app schema has actually fixed this mistake
so we will burn this bridge when we come to it in the future.
I'm a bit confused though about the inclusion of cddl xsds in apache
svn since IIUC you have indicated xsds are definitely "source
code" (I completely agree) and the draft 3rd party licensing page
says cddl source can't be in apache releases. It doesn't say whether
a few files can be in svn or not AFAICT but that certainly looks like
it would prohibit shipping an asf jar with any cddl xsds in it.
thanks
david jencks
- Sam Ruby
(*) http://www.sun.com/cddl/cddl.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
