John, A jar with known provenance seems like a good idea. I'm giving Axiom and Axis2 tests a go with the geronimo stax jar now. If they pass I'll commit the changes this evening. David
On 02/10/2007, John Kaputin (gmail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have successfully compiled and tested Woden's OM implementation using the > StAX api jar from Apache Geronimo. I'd like to know if Axiom could use this > jar file instead of the Codehaus stax-api-1.0.1.jar file. This would resolve > one remaining issue we have on the Woden incubator status file [1] about > verifying licenses for software included in the distribution. This change > would require a more thorough test of Axiom than my Woden-specific test. > > The remaining issue we have concerns the license file specified for the > Codehaus stax-api-1.0.1.jar file in the Axiom distribution. Axiom specifies > the Apache 2.0 license, but we have not yet been able to determine with > certainty how the Axiom project came to use ASL 2.0 for this jar file. ASL > 2.0 is not included in the original codehaus jar file and there's no > reference to ASL 2.0 on the StAX api project at the codehaus website. > > We did get some responses a while back saying that: > a) licensing of StAX is complicated > b) ASL 2.0 is the correct license (but without any explanation of why) > c) BEA is the only authorative source > > I think the simplest option is to use the Geronimo StAX API jar (with it's > ASL 2.0 license). Alternatively, I'll have to try the legal-discuss list to > try to resolve the license question. > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/woden.html > > regards, > John Kaputin > -- David Illsley - IBM Web Services Development --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
