On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> BTW, the clause 'complete and unmodified' is very interesting - does it
> refers to the jar or the whole binary package ( most people refer to the
> whole downloaded package as 'software', and the jar is a piece of it ).
> If so, tomcat and most other packages that include it are breaking
> the licences, since they repackage and include only the jar.
> 'Software' is previously defined as 'accompanying software
> and documentation and any error corrections provided by Sun (collectively
> "Software")
yep ;)
> Even more fun is the restriction on creating 'java., javax., or sun.'
> packages. Does it mean that you're not allowed to include open source
> ( and clean room ) implementations of javax. pacakges if you include
> one of those licences ?
yep.
> The only possible conclusion is that software shouldn't be redistributed
> without a lawyer checking and aproving every included license, and
> we need a list of licenses that are acceptable for inclusion on
> packages we distribute ( from jakarta, xml, etc ), verified by a lawyer.
Correct - but even packages that presumably have IBM (and sun?) people
working on them have questionable legalities. Take xerces (or crimson), at
one stage they included the jaxp source code and even if it doesn't anymore
it surely links against it.
However I can't see how this is even vaguely legal - due to the licensing
issues brought up recently wrt the JCP process. It uses the products of the
JCP and I am not aware of any different licensing policy for the jaxp stuff.
Nor am I aware of any publically avaiable TCK for the JAXP library which
means that apaches xml parser is in violation of the license for JAXP spec. I
could be wrong but thats how I understand it and as such even major projects
at Apache are not legal. Fun eh?
I presume there is some form of implied consent/licensing or somethin gthat
may hold up if it ever went to court but even then I really dislike the fact
that we have to rely on the good will of a company not to sue apache or even
worse to sue Apaches users ;(
Then again IANAL and could be completely wrong? Anyone want to explain why I
am wrong? :)
--
Cheers,
Pete
"You know what a dumbshit the 'average man' on the street is? Well, by
definition, half of them are even dumber than that!"
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
