I'd like to jump in here. I'm lazy and will go back and read all the threads later, but I've been overwhelmed recently, and just want to relay some info :)

I'm the Apache JCP rep, and have had some talks with Sun about this issue. The object is to get a formal agreement from Sun to allow us to do this, without us having to try and interpret the license agreement.

That said, I'm going to go back through the thread and catch up. If someone wants me to stop this activity with Sun, let me know. Otherwise, I will do what I can to make the whole issue go away for us.

geir


On Nov 20, 2003, at 6:53 PM, Tim Anderson wrote:

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:
  http://repo.apache.org/sun/jndi/1.2.1/jars/jndi-1.2.1.jar

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 jndi-1_2_1.zip 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.
   As far as I can tell, the only requirement is that the
   onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the license.

. "(ii) the Programs add significant and primary
   functionality to the Software,"

Again, the onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the license.

. "(iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
   replace any component(s) of the Software"

   Not violated by the repository nor the download tool.

. "(iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
   notices contained in the Software,"

  When unpacking the distribution, the tool needs to ensure
  that license information is retained.

. "(v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license
   agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms
   contained in this Agreement, and"

Again, the onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the license.

. "(vi) you 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."


  The ASF has not distributed the software, so it can't be liable.

If this has been discussed elsewhere, could you post a link?

Thanks,

Tim

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2003 2:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: click through license support?


Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/11/2003 01:31:13 AM:



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Nicola Ken Barozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/11/2003
10:00:07
PM:


Tim Anderson wrote:
...
A tool can 'screen scrape' the redirected page, prompt the user
to accept the license and only download if the license is accepted,

If the tool is made to work like a web browser, ie show the pages and
then download when the user clicks on the button, IMHO it would be
perfectly acceptable.

But still illegal.

I still don't understand why.

I mean, if:

1- the program opens the browser on the product download page
2 - the user does the download steps as usual
3 - the program gets the downloaded artifact from the local download
location


Why would we be breaking the license? The only difference between this
approach and the usual one is that the download location is linked.


We've been down this road and are working with Sun on a solution. We
have
(had?) a tool that would do the above in Maven ages ago.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

See http://maven.apache.org/sun-licensing-journey.html

Very good that you have this page, thanks for the pointer.

For example, the JavaMail v1.3 BCL has "Supplemental License Terms" which
state in Point 2. :


"...Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to
reproduce and distribute the
Software in binary code form only, provided that (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"), (ii) the Programs add significant and primary
functionality to the
Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
replace any component(s) of
the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
notices contained in the
Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license
agreement that protects Sun's
interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi)
you 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."


I don't think a repository for distributing jars fits the
requirements for
(i) or (ii), and may possibly break (iii).

And I don't think the ASF would like to agree to (vi).
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/








--
Geir Magnusson Jr                                   203-247-1713(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to