Henri Yandell wrote:
Looks like you're in moderation there.
Yeah. I realized after I sent it that I have no right to post there.
I've tried subscribing, but unlike the other apache lists, approval does
not seem to come automatically. I'm still waiting for approval.
Looking at the Mail List Archives for that list, we see the following
from Cliff Schmidt:
------------------------------------------------------
If Paul Ferraro is the sole copyright owner of all the code of
interest, then there shouldn't be a problem. Assumuning this is the
case, the next question is whether the code is to be hacked on going
forward within the Jakarta Commons community or whether it is just
being dropped into some external/third-party directory. If the
former, then Paul should sign a Software Grant. If the latter, Paul
should simply create a new release of the code explicitly licensed
under the Apache License, and the the Jakarta PMC can choose to allow
that to be included in the Jakarta Commons distribution.
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the code is to be hacked on. Already there are suggestions for new
features, etc. Cliff - any information on how to sign a Software Grant?
I'll send the below when I see the email there:
Are Paul and Josejuan the only contributors to the work? Usually you
need to have the permission of every committer (contributor?) to the
work to allow relicencing. That part is all about copyright law I
think.
This would seem to be so. Going over the whole Source Forge site for
this project, there doesn't seem to be a single file committed there by
anyone other than Mr. Ferraro. It looks like he removed the LPGL from
every file on Friday, Jan 20. If there's anyone else he needs approval
from to remove the LPGL, I didn't find it. The Source Forge site
doesn't provide a list of developers for the project.
However, in my due diligence, I did discover one item that might require
some further comment. A previous version (1.1) of
net.sf.ufsc.UserInfo.java contains the following copyright notice:
/*
* Copyright (c) 2004, Identity Theft 911, LLC. All rights reserved.
*/
Was this Paul Ferraro's company? If not, did he have permission to take
it to LPGL? I don't think this would be a huge impediment anyway, at
its worst. This is a very simple class for which a clean-room
implementation, if needed, would be very simple to do.
Does the com.sun bit mean that a separate jar is needed, or is it part
of the JVM?
It's apparently part of the JVM. The reason they used this class rather
than the javax.net.ssl class of the same name is to preserve jdk 1.3
compatibility. Since that is an issue with commons-net as well, this is
a good thing. These classes were originally part of the Java Secure
Socket Extension (JSSE), which was incorporated into JDK 1.4. I'm not
sure if the best way wouldn't be to require the use of this jar on the
classpath for jdks < 1.4, but this is now more a technical question than
a legal one.
In the latter case I think we'll find out that things are legally
okay; if the former then the current policy is that that is okay
(depends on licence, but we're shipping lots of Sun licenced works),
but it's likely to require some hoops in the near future.
Hen
On 1/22/06, Steve Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
Steve -
While there are multiple people on this list who are probably
well-informed enough to answer the questions below definitively, I'd
also ping legal-discuss@ which might have a better demographic for
these kind of posts.
-Rahul
On 1/22/06, Steve Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Josejuan Montiel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has submitted some code
that would implement an FTPS protocol as an addition to commons-net.
This submission takes the form of a patch submitted as a bug via
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38309. Apparently
this code was submitted as part of an existing project under SourceForge (
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ufsc). That project was originally under the
LGPL, although its owner, Paul Ferraro has apparently agreed to switch it to
the Apache
License.
Can some of the licensing gurus comment on this, and provide feedback? I would
like to see this happen if it's possible. However, Mr. Montiel has more work
to do before
the team would accept the submission, and I am reluctant to suggest that he do
it if some licensing issue that I am not aware of would kill the idea.
Additionally. the submission depends on classes in the com.sun.net.ssl
package. Are these legal imports for jakarta?
Steve Cohen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks, I've cross-posted there now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
