cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <>
Subject Re: Hibernate question
Date Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:44:15 GMT
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
>> So yes, we must remove Hibernate-related code from what we 
>> redistribute from Spring.
> I'm not even sure this is enough. It is from a purely legal POV, but 
> it might be confusing for users: unless we clearly state that Apache 
> Cocoon is protected by the AL 2.0 if and only if you use the shipped 
> version of the Spring jars, not the official ones, there is a risk of 
> someone redistributing Cocoon with different/updated/custom 
> built/whatever Spring jars which could be viral.
> OTOH, I find strange that this slipped away:
> > This is the readme file from spring lib directory:
> [...]
> > * aopalliance/aopalliance.jar
> > - AOP Alliance 1.0 (
> Couldn't find license. Public Domain?
> ... a bunch of J2EE files, and...
> > * jboss/jboss-common-jdbc-wrapper.jar
> > - JBoss connection pool classes (
> *Dangerous* stuff. Definitely viral.
> With all this in mind, I have an hard time defining Spring as a safe 
> bet licensing wise.

There are parts that may be subject to LGPL virality, but 99% of Spring 
doesn't rely on LGPL'ed libraries.

So if we ever want to include Spring in an ASF repository, we could ask 
the Spring folks to make separate jars for those files whose licensing 
status could be suspicious, and not include them on the repository.

That wouldn't remove much of the value of Spring, as one of its main 
purposes is to cut strong dependencies with the actual ORM or Datasource 
implementations used.

The license of AOPAlliance has to be clarified, though.


Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies 
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }

View raw message