See inline.

> Sent: Friday, 21 November 2003 11:12 AM
> I'm not sure of the relevance of this to an ASF repository, but....

Convenience. ASF repository can provide a single point of
access for commonly used artifacts. This avoids the need
for users to be directed via documentation to various websites 
to locate JARS for example, in order to build ASF programs.
As a consequence, it cuts down on emails like "I tried to build
X but it failed because class not found".

> "Tim Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21/11/2003 10:53:47 AM:
> > Can you clarify the licensing issues further? I'm having trouble
> > seeing what the problems are.
> > 
> > Suppose ASF has the following link in the repository:
> >
> > 
> > This is a virtual artifact, not hosted at ASF.
> > 
> > Via http redirection and magic, a download tool:
> > A. pops up a browser, requiring the user to accept Sun's license
> > B. downloads the corresponding distribution
> >    if and only if the user *manually* accepts the license
> > C. caches the distribution locally
> > D. extracts jndi.jar from the distribution for local use
> > 
> > Taking the Sun license points one at a time:
> > . "(i): you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only
> >    bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Java
> >    applets or applications ("Programs")"
> > 
> >    I don't see a violation here. The repository is not distributing
> >    JNDI - its facilitating its download.
> >    The download tool is not distributing JNDI - its facilitating
> >    its use by an application.
> IANAL, but the download tool is distributing the binary version of the 
> code.

IANAL either, but how is this different to a user manually 
downloading the distribution using IE, and then extracting it 
with winzip? Neither Microsoft nor Winzip have any liability.


Reply via email to