On Tuesday November 07 2006 3:58 am, Robert Greig wrote: > On 06/11/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 to maven, which I've been working on for awhile. So far in doing > > the maven work I've been surprised by both 1) the number of > > dependencies, which is much higher than I expected, and 2) the > > dependencies which aren't really legal. The JMS jar is one. > > Here is the redistribution clause from the licence for JMS.jar: > > 2. License to Distribute Software. In addition to > the license granted in Section 1 (Software > Internal Use and Development License Grant) of > these Supplemental Terms, subject to the terms and > conditions of this Agreement, including but not > limited to Section 3 (Java Technology > Restrictions), Sun grants you a non-exclusive, > non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and > distribute the Software in binary form only, > provided that you (i) distribute the Software > complete and unmodified and only bundled as part > of your Programs, (ii) do not distribute > additional software intended to replace any > component(s) of the Software, (iii) do not remove > or alter any proprietary legends or notices > contained in the Software, (iv) only distribute > the Software subject to a license agreement that > protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms > contained in this Agreement, and (v) agree to > defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from > and against any damages, costs, liabilities, > settlement amounts and/or expenses (including > attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any > claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that > arises or results from the use or distribution of > any and all Programs and/or Software. > > Does the Apache licence violate (iv)? > > RG
Yes. That's the Sun BCL license. Explicitly not allowed: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
