|
Hi David, I've doublecheck with the lawyers and they
have assured me that BEA's intention is that Apache should not need a special
license to implement the spec or include the specification source/binary files
in Apache source/binary distributions. If you aren't comfortable with the public
commonj license, however, BEA would be willing to grant a special license for
commonj like the one attached (but rewritten for commonj). Regards, Seth From: David Jencks
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I sent this earlier with some non-text inclusions, and haven't seen it
get through. I'm trying again typing out some of the quoted pdf contents. Begin forwarded message:
From:
David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date:
February 1, 2006 6:00:18 PM PST Subject:
License issues with commonj We have a patch with an implementation of the commonj timer spec. I'd like to get this into svn soon. One issue is straightening out the
license provisions for the api and implementations. AFAICT commonj is a joint effort of
BEA and IBM. The bea website discussing commonj is: After the download links it states: This specification is being made available on an RF basis (as detailed
in the Copyright notice of the specification); therefore, BEA does not require
an implementation license. If you prefer, however, you may request a license
from BEA to implement the specification. The specification pdf says: This specification may change before final release and you are
cautioned against relying on the content of this specification. IBM and
BEA are currently soliciting your contributions and suggestions. Licenses
are available for the purposes of feedback and (optionally) for implementation.
and earlier: IBM and BEA (collectively, the "Authors") agree to grant you
a royalty-free license, under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms and
conditions to patents that they deem necessary to implement the Timer and Work
Manager for Application Servers Specification. There is a link to a zip of source code for the api. These files contain the following
license statement: /* Timer for Application Servers * Version 1.1 * Licensed Materials - Property of BEA and IBM * * © Copyright BEA Systems, Inc. and International Business Machines
Corp 2003-2004. All rights reserved. */ My theory about this is that we might not need a license to write our
own api classes from the javadoc, or to write implementations of the api, but
that we can't simply check in the existing source code without some
documentation/grants from IBM and BEA. Since there are only about 14 classes in the api it would undoubtedly
be much quicker to simply write out the classes from the javadoc than seek
documentations/grants. I assume that a patch to a jira issue containing apache licensed api
classes, with permission granted to apache for inclusion, supported by CLA and
CCLA, would also be fine. My interpretation of the statements about licensing are that we don't
need a license. However I'm not
at all confident I've interpreted this properly. How can we proceed? thanks david jencks |
License for the Service Data Objects JavaDoc and Interface Definition files.doc
Description: License for the Service Data Objects JavaDoc and Interface Definition files.doc
