On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:44:36 +1100 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: Craig R. McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Jakarta Project Management Committee List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Distribution of jar files illegally? > > "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/02/2003 03:42:36 > PM: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > James currently includes JavaMail, Activation, dns-java and Junit > > > non-Apache-jars without licenses in CVS. > > > > > > > JavaMail, JAF, and other similar JAR files downloaded from the > > java.sun.com web site have license agreements associated with them. In > > the case of these JARs, the license agreement allowes you to include > them > > in a product, but not make them available separately. Thus, it's fine > for > > James to include these two JARs, just as it is fine for Tomcat to do so. > > > > The problem comes when you put a JAR file, on its own, into your own CVS > > repository (because it's then available separately to anywone with CVS > > access), or in a repository for automatic download such as that enabled > > by Maven. The *latter* scenario is the issue, not the former. > > Yep, so James including these jars in CVS *is* the latter scenario, > right? > If they are in the jakarta-james CVS repository, yes. If they are included in a jakarta-james binary distribution, no. > Or am I misreading your last paragraph. Note that the jars are available > via 'cvs checkout' of James. It's not a distribution we're talking about. Yep ... that is a problem. > -- > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog > Work: http://www.multitask.com.au > > > > Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
