cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin O'Neill" <ke...@rocketred.com.au>
Subject Re: [ANN] XMLForm as a standalone servlet toolkit
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:16:37 GMT
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:25:00 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Kevin O'Neill wrote:
> 
>> I don't believe that points 4 and 5 are violated by "package
>> org.apache.xmlform" any more than the statement "import
>> org.apache.xmlform"; the license precludes neither one of these things.
> 
> There is a huge difference between
> 
>   package org.apache.xmlform;
> 
> and
> 
>   import org.apache.xmlform.*;
> 
> and the reason is that the first is a describer, the second is a
> reference.
> 
> If you describe your stuff with a name or trademark or sign that is owned
> by somebody else and it can be shown that you do *harm* to the trademark
> owner when you do, you can get sued for damages.
> 
> If you reference an entity with its name, this is fair use and cannot
> cause any harm if properly placed in context.
> 
> The reason why 'package org.apache...' can harm the foundation is, for
> example, name clashing. A package name is a unique identifier for a class,
> if there is a package name collision in the classloader, it is impossible
> to reference one class from another.
> 
> So, if apache decides to use the org.apache.whatever package and somebody
> else used it already, there is potential harm.
> 
> The policy of protecting the package name is to avoid further problems
> down the road.

I understand your point and agree with it. I would like to however ask
some follow up questions :).

Say I'm building with cocoon 2.0.4 and there is a bug in the foo. I fix 
that bug in the version of coccon that I supply to my client. Under normal
circumstances I would supply the client with the code (including third
party code, patched or not) of the product I'm working on. Can I supply
the patched version?

Now lets say that I enhance one of the existing components to extend the
functionality in some way of the component (say allow for an addition
configuration option). Can I supply this version?

What if I've submitted both enhancements as patches and they have been
excepted for the HEAD version?

What if they haven't?

> But defining an package and import it (or extend it) are two entirely
> different things because they can't do any harm.

I think this sort of stuff should be in a licensing FAQ.

> Stefano.

-k.

-- 
If you don't test then your code is only a collection of bugs which 
apparently behave like a working program. 

Website: http://www.rocketred.com.au/blogs/kevin/



Mime
View raw message