We (the committers for XMLBeans) are actively working on this. It is definitely an issue and we apologize for the delay - but we want to get it right - so we are actively talking to the lawyers on how to resolve this and unfortunately it's taking a while. Please bear with us - we will try and resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
> -----Original Message----- > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:43 PM > To: dev@xmlbeans.apache.org > Subject: Re: Legal issue: Considering Sun's JSR173 implementation over > Bea's > > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
