On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 14:07 +0300, Panu Hällfors wrote: > [my first post seemed to jam somewhere, reposting] > > Thanks for taking on the issue. My comments below. > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:52:09PM -0700, Cezar Andrei wrote: > > The jsr173_1.0_api.jar contains binaries for The Streaming API > > for XML (StAX), also known as JSR173. Since, BEA was the lead of this > JSR, it was responsible for making this binary under a > > publicly usable license under the JCP rules. Further more, the > > file jsr173_api.jar included in Sun's jwsdp-1.6\sjsxp\lib is the same > binary, under the same BEA.RI.LIC.txt license. > > First, the jsr173_api.jar in Sun's jwsdp is not the same binary as Bea's. > To begin with, there is a different number of files > in each of them. > > Secondly, I didn't find any documentation about BEA.RI.LIC.txt > applying to jsr173_api.jar. The documentation in Bea's distribution says > that that BEA.RI.LIC.txt applies to the "reference implementation but I > can't find anything that would define that jsr173_api.jar is part of the > reference implementation.
this is something that needs cleaning up on a couple of levels. IMHO going forward, this dependency is something that should really be resolved accurately. if there is any doubt about the identity of the jar in external/lib/ then i would recommend replacing this with a known dependency (the sun RI seems like a good candidate). the license for the jar should also be included in any future releases. i agree with Cezar that it is important to have a license file for the bea jar shipped in the release. i wonder whether it would be possible for cliff to confirm that the understanding of the licensing for this jar is correct... - robert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
