Hi Dain,
This is a list of dtd/xsd that we're working on now.
Craig
Begin forwarded message:
> From: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: June 20, 2007 7:39:10 PM PDT
> To: Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Legal Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MyFaces Development
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Stoddard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Geronimo Dev List (JIRA)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
>
> No doubt I''m just stupid...
> The new improved xsd still says:
>
> No part of this document
> may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
> written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>
> Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
> prior written authorization?
>
> As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
> from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
> top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
> language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
> assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
> it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4,
> j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
> headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
> Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing
> all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able
> to put them back.
>
> Geronimo would like at least:
>
> application-client_5.xsd
> application_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
> handler-chain.xsd
> javaee_5.xsd
> javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
> javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
> jsp_2_1.xsd
> persistence_1_0.xsd
> web-app_2_5.xsd
> web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
>
> application-client_1_4.xsd
> application_1_4.xsd
> connector_1_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
> j2ee_1_4.xsd
> j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
> jsp_2_0.xsd
> web-app_2_4.xsd
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
>
> Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
> portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language,
> it also doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the
> xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
>
> many thanks,
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
>> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
>> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>>
>> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>>
>> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>>
>> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
>> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
>> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
>> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
>> license option do we).
>>
>> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
>> to get them updated as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>>>
>>> <!--
>>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>>> -->
>>>
>>> appearing in these two files?
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>>> view=markup
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>>> revision=374886&view=markup
>>>
>>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
>>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
>>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
>>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
>>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
>>> justification?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> 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]
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
