On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:43 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote: > > > > 3. we could also just not distribute right? > > > > Yes but IIUC this makes it rather iffy for anyone who wants to use the > multicast discovery(?) stuff in activemq -- they have to find the
Actually the default multicast:// protocol that ActiveMQ uses is not based on jmdns. It's one we rolled ourselves. > appropriate jar themselves (which one????) and decipher the licensing which > is far from clear at the moment and figure out how to get it into the > appropriate classpath. Also use of the javax.jmdns classes in activemq code Yes. But that would just be a choice for the end user and it would not hold up our release. > might possibly annoy sun. > This is probably the worst problem. > I already did (2) locally, it only took about 15 minutes. > Your awesome! > thanks > david jencks > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 3:47 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > While reviewing the legal files (LICENSE and NOTICE) for activemq > > > 4.1-SNAPSHOT I discovered that the build depends on and the assembly > > > distributes a jar activemq:jmdns:1.0-RC2:jar. I'm having some trouble > > > figuring out exactly where this came from and what license it might be > > > under. > > > > > > I found that at one point the codehaus activemq project had something > > > related to this... > > > > http://fisheye.codehaus.org/browse/maven/repository/activemq/jmdns/1.0-RC2 > > > > > > but it doesn't appear to be there now. > > > > > > I found a sourceforge jmdns project > > > > > > http://jmdns.sourceforge.net/ > > > which claims to be lgpl licensed. > > > > > > There's a jmdns:jmdnds:1.0:jar in maven which might be from this > project: > > > the class names appear to match. > > > > > > Now if you look at the cvs view of this sourceforge project, there's an > > > apache license and notice file checked into the root. Furthermore the > > > javax.jmdns.* classes indicate in headers that they are apache 2 > licensed. > > > However there are some com.strangeberry classes and samples classes that > > > have only a LGPL licence header. The com.strangeberry classes are > included > > > in both jars I've found. > > > > > > Furthermore I can't find any evidence that the javax.jmdns classes are > part > > > of a java jsr, so I have a hard time believing their use of the javax > > > namespace is, um, legal. > > > > > > So, I see two problems > > > 1. inclusion of lgpl classes in an apache distribution > > > 2. javax namespace with no apparent permission from sun. > > > > > > With this understanding of the situation I'd have a hard time voting > > > anything other than -1 on any release that included one of the existing > > > jmdns jars. > > > > > > Unless there is more to the story than I've found out so far I see two > ways > > > to proceed: > > > > > > 1. work with the jmdns project to release a jar that is clearly apache > 2 > > > licensed and is ok sun-wise > > > 2. produce our own jar with only the apache licensed jmdns classes > under a > > > sun-friendly package name (such as org.apache.activemq.jmdns). > > > > > > I'm interested in getting a 4.1.2 release out ASAP so I'd be happy to > set > > > up a module in activemq to do (2) and modify the use of the jmdns > classes as > > > appropriate. I could work on (1) as well but think it isn't likely to > > > happen in the next day or so. > > > > > > Thoughts on how to proceed? > > > > > > thanks > > > david jencks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Hiram > > > > Blog: http://hiramchirino.com > > > > Open Source SOA > > http://open.iona.com > > > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com Open Source SOA http://open.iona.com
