> Did you know that the Cocoon guys have jimi.jar in their CVS? I wonder
> if that's correct and if yes, I think we should do it, too.

>From my reading of it, by downloading the jar you automatically agree to the 
license. This is quite different to ASL.
It is also non-transferable, I think that means the person who downloaded and 
agreed to the license cannot then make it available to others.

> Reading the licence I get the impression that redistribution of the jar
> is possible but not without restrictions. IANAL so who can we ask if
> distributing this jar is ok?

The XML PMC is supposed to look after these issues (and I think if cocoon is top 
level then a cocoon PMC).

> I get the impression that things like that will be an everlasting
> problem. There should be a central source of information on licencing at
> Apache. A place where the gathered legal knowledge can be hammered in
> stone and be reused by other projects. Even the fact that we didn't
> include jimi.jar and Cocoon did gives me an uneasy feeling that the
> licence-sweep held at the XML project last year wasn't done 100% right.
> I'd like to escalate that topic again. What I think would be in the best
> interest of the Apache Foundation would be a central source of
> information where all projects and subprojects can get information on
> licencing. The following things would be very helpful:
> - Licence guidelines
> - A document describing the relationship of the APL to other licences. 
>   (what's compatible, what's not and why)
> - A list of approved products to be redistributable by Apache
> What are your thoughts?
> Jeremias Maerki

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to