Ainsi parlait Santiago Gala :
[..]
FYI: Some time ago, I was forbidden to download a java package because
my ISP did not have reverse DNS address mapping properly setup, even
though I'm in Spain, not a free world enemy, AFAIK. The message I got
was something like we could not assess your
-Original Message-
From: Guillaume Rousse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
I know they use such kind of filtering based on your domain
name. It also
means just using a private indirection, as you did, or public
redirect
service as anonymiser.com bypass it easily.
So we can say
Ainsi parlait [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
Ok, I didn't know that - and I bet many other people are in the same
situation.
If anyone can confirm this with a professional, then I think it should
be displayed pretty clearly on a visible page, and we should
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:05:41 0100 Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you break US law while in France without
breaking any French laws and no US laws covered by extradition treaties, I
don't think you care unless you enter the US physically (and have ticked
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
They still include the jaxp source code, in xml-commons.
But it's a clean-room implementation, made directly from the spec.
The directly from the spec is where the problem lies. It uses suns IP
Peter Donald wrote:
ie If we could set up a decent process and work with other standards
organizations (ECMA, IEEE, W3C), have a relatively formal
participation contract (and thus *safe* from eyes of corporate/IP
lawyers) and finally make allies of organisations like IBM, Apple
and whoever
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: License issue (the come back)
snip /
Please, not another standard body !!!
Could someone check the definition of 'standard
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Steve Downey wrote:
You chose a definition that suits your argument. In the industry, the
definition is usually more like:
I just used google.
That which is established by authority as a rule for the measure of
quantity, extent, value, or quality; esp., the original
Ainsi parlait Jon Scott Stevens :
on 3/12/02 7:05 AM, Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we did, and here is the result
You didn't find licenses for a lot of software that has licenses...instead
of saying 'no license' which implies that it does not have a license, you
should have
...
- I looked at the license and the words
Ex: You have chosen to download Java(TM) Message
Service (JMS) API
-- Javadoc 1.0.2b
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Binary Code License Agreement
Two things - the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] is more
Ainsi parlait [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
The BCL states that you cannot make a distribution of the .jar file
outside of your product. In other words, if you want to distribute the
single .jar file, you can't do that.
(i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as
Ainsi parlait GOMEZ Henri :
We have setup [EMAIL PROTECTED] for that reason (this is
also commonly
discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and
both list are not available to basic commiters ?
But the first one is:
try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG
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
-Original Message-
From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
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
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
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
List
Asunto: Re: License issue (the come back)
[snip]
AFAIK ( and again don't take my word for it, call your lawyer
:-), clean
room implementations based on a published spec are perfectly
legal. Probably the name/logo is protected, but saying that your
code implements/is based on jaxp/jmx
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro wrote:
Does not the DMCA expressly prohibit reverse-engineering? Or is it just
legaleze, not applicable in the real world?
Implementing a published API/specification have nothing to do with
reverse-engineering and I don't think it is
on 3/13/02 9:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implementing a published API/specification have nothing to do with
reverse-engineering and I don't think it is prohibited.
Nope. It isn't. I re-implemented a BEA specification (dbKona) based on their
publicly available javadoc's.
That's good news. Thanks a lot,
Alex.
-Mensaje original-
De: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Enviado el: miércoles 13 de marzo de 2002 18:52
Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asunto: Re: License issue (the come back)
on 3/13/02 9:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED
that implement JMX are OK.
They are not for J2EE. According to these licenses, in any case.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:04 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: License issue (the come back)
On Wed, 13 Mar
]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:04 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: License issue (the come back)
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
Correct - but even packages that presumably have IBM (and
sun?) people
working on them have questionable legalities. Take
Does not the DMCA expressly prohibit reverse-engineering? Or is it just
legaleze, not applicable in the real world?
The DMCA is about circumventing copy right protecting devices or
constructs.
Implementing a library based on a public description of an API; where this
description is obtained
..
I remember reading somewhere about some fair use of published
information and books, but didn't know that this can be restricted.
I should start reading the prefaces of the books, maybe they'll
start including a licence and 'if you disagree with the terms, you
must burn the book
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
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
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
They still include the jaxp source code, in xml-commons.
But it's a clean-room implementation, made directly from the spec.
The directly from the spec is where the problem lies. It uses suns IP and
thus must the TCK. We don't and thus we are in
Hello.
They have been already *several* discussions about Sun proprietary APIs
licenses, and more precisely about exact redistribution conditions. Current
consensus in ASF, AFAIK, is that redistribution of crypto API (as jsse) is
strictly forbidden, and redistribution of non-crypto APIS is
The last point is the only real problem IMHO. Basically, it forbids to
export software in free world ennemy countries TM. I don't know
if making
somone from such a country able to download software from a
website could be
considered software exportation, but considering the technical
on 3/12/02 7:05 AM, Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we did, and here is the result
You didn't find licenses for a lot of software that has licenses...instead
of saying 'no license' which implies that it does not have a license, you
should have stated ('could not find a
I went through the java.sun.com website and in about 30
seconds found the
licenses for the first 3 'no license' items below...you can do
the rest of
the work...
Could you help us in such works since :
- you were damn't fast on such hard task
- you have many friends at Sun which could help you
The BCL states that you cannot make a distribution of the .jar file outside
of your product. In other words, if you want to distribute the single .jar
file, you can't do that.
(i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as
part of your Programs
What about a dummy
on 3/12/02 4:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 (
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jars.html
The problem is that the list should be reversed - i.e. what licences
are _allowed_ and verified by a lawyer.
And we have 2 issues - what jars are allowed in CVS, and what jars
are allowed in the
on 3/12/02 5:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that the list should be reversed - i.e. what licences
are _allowed_ and verified by a lawyer.
And we have 2 issues - what jars are allowed in CVS, and what jars
are allowed in the binary software we distribute.
It has nothing to do with language barriers or who I know.
- I went to each product on Sun's website.
Ex: http://java.sun.com/products/jms/
ok
- I clicked the 'Download' link on the left side navigation.
Ex: http://java.sun.com/products/jms/docs.html
ok
- I
We have setup [EMAIL PROTECTED] for that reason (this is
also commonly
discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and
both list are not available to basic commiters ?
have setup pages
like this one to help us track things...
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jars.html
Yes, but
35 matches
Mail list logo
