Wouldn't that necessarily not refer to XML and text files that are inside of a JAR file? I mean, every JAR file has a text manifest, so a ruling that said "only JARs that don't include text files"... would be rather silly.
-- Adam On 4/18/06, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:13 PM > > To: MyFaces Development > > Subject: Re: idea regarding components > > > > On 4/18/06, Abrams, Howard A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Reading that link and under those rules, I would think that you > cannot > > > include any jar that included any JavaScript or XML; they would > count as > > > non-binary/source. I haven't looked at facelets closely (because of > the > > > CDDL license), but I would assume that it includes some XML > > > configuration for the standard JSF components. Linking to it with > Maven > > > might be a different story. > > > > I don't think Facelets includes any javascript . > > > > The facelets xml configuration files are not executable content. They > > don't do anything. They just associate tags and classes. And they're > > only included in binary form in any case(1). > > > > -Mike > > > > > > (1)This isn't the place to discuss the legal details, but my take is > > that a jar file would count as a "binary form" and could thus contain > > javascript. Fortunately, it's a moot point in this case -- take it > > up on legal discuss if you're interested in getting an authoritative > > ruling and have an actual use case. > > Not to beat a dead (and moot) horse, but assuming that link is > authoritative, it specifically mentions XML: > > "Therefore, XML and text files covered by a Category B license cannot be > included in an Apache product." >
