Apologies for coming late to this thread. There is interest in using myfaces within Eclipse and we are currently completing our due diligence on the code base. The project has said that they will not be updating the DTD files to reflect the CDDL license and I believe they understand that to be what they should do based on this discussion [1]. I haven't been able to locate a final resolution on that part of the discussion. Could someone clarify for me?
[1] http://users.myfaces.markmail.org/search/?q=#query:+page:9+mid:hbl3jra5x57w4 hi6+state:results Janet -----Original Message----- From: Kevan Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:55 AM To: Craig L Russell Cc: Sam Ruby; David Jencks; ASF Legal Discuss; Geronimo Dev List (JIRA) Subject: Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: > On Aug 9, 2007, at 6:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > >> On 8/4/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> I've updated the draft 3rd party licensing page: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html > > +1 > > Thanks for the update, Sam! Agreed. Also, thanks for the timely and informative responses. They were very helpful in deciding how to move forward on this matter. > > IIUC, Geronimo makes two uses of the CDDL-licensed xsd files. > > 1. The unmodified xsd files are available to the xml parser to > avoid downloading the files from the internet during operation. > > 2. The unmodified xsd files are "compiled" into Java classes which > are then compiled into binary form for execution. > > The new policy seems to address both cases, assuming that Geronimo > chooses to update their copies of the files to the CDDL-licensed > versions. Just to be precise, Geronimo does not currently use CDDL-licensed schema files. Moving to the CDDL-licensed versions of these schema files is, IMO, the right thing to do. I intend to start this next week. There's still the question of how the CDDL license extends to the resultant binaries. Something for next week, I guess... --kevan --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
