One other thing to note is that the sun 1.1 dtd file is included verbatim as part of the JSF spec.
See 10.3.3 Application Configuration Resource Format On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For this particular file set, the person to answer would be Martin Marinschek as he committed the license and the files. On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lance, > > I think you can safely delete these files without impacting your > application (although your app may go out to the internet and attempt > to resolve the dtd reference if the files are not available locally). > > I do see a license file located in the following location which does > appear to grant redistribution. This should cover the proprietary > issue since it's being used according to the license terms. > > META-INF/licenses/sundtd-LICENSE.txt > > These files cannot be considered "confidential" as they are > deliberately published for public use at the following URLs: > > http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd > http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd > > > > On 4/2/07, Lance Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am disturbed by the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd > > files included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar. The prolog in both files > > says > > > > <!-- > > Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. > > SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms. > > --> > > > > I'm willing to believe that a Sun developer forgot to clean up the prologs > > when these DTD files were released, but I don't want to lose my job because > > I have distributed restricted SUN property. > > > > I have done some homework. The subject files are available from the Sun > > Developers Site at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ where Sun declares that "Unless > > otherwise licensed, code in all technical manuals herein (including > > articles, FAQs, samples) is provided under this License." and "this License" > > links to the same Sun License included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar. > > The problem is that this blanket statement does not apply to something > > declared proprietary/confidential; something declared > > proprietary/confidential is "otherwise licensed" and cannot be distributed. > > > > Can someone show me evidence that Sun permits these files to be distributed? > > Maybe there is a special agreement with the Apache Software Foundation that > > can be referenced. > > > > Are these files just included as a convenience? What would break if I just > > removed them from the JAR? > > > > It's not a perfect world, > > > > Lance > > >
