>> Because that's what the "Redistribution" paragraph of the >license that you >> had to click through says you can do and not do. (See why >it's a good >> idea to actually *read* these things? :-) >Craig, you've still not answered precisely to my question. >Please explain us >if what we are doing violates BLC because:
>1) we just allow separate download of BLC-licenced code, even >if others >projects do it also. >2) we allow separate download of BLC-licenced code without having to >explicitely click on a "i agree" button, even if BLC text is >included in the >release. > >The first point would prevent us from any packaging of those >libraries, And so will make backstep in a clean packaging solution. I speak about jpackage for RPM but it could be extended to the still to be started CJAN. >but >the second could be solved quite easily with http download. It >would prevents >us anyway of using ftp repository or automated upgrade >facilities as urpmi or >apt-get, tough. And in that case it will make packaging not usefull since it couldn't be provided in distribution, via FTP/HTTP/RSYNC or CD ISO images. I recall the goal is to have an easy to use Java Environnement which will help newbies use a consistant developpement environnement, which is very similar to the WSDP release but more general. Everybody has something to win here, Sun, Java, Apache and OSS. A related question, why not relax licence for APIs which contain only interfaces and sus no implementations ? I think here at jta-spec which are required to build tyrex which is required to build Tomcat 4. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
