db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sanket Sharma" <sanketsha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Choice of JMX implementations
Date Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:59:25 GMT
Thanks Andrew for pointing out the legal implications.

Apache commons is not an implementation. It only facilitates coding of MBeans.

On 7/14/06, Andrew McIntyre <mcintyre.a@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the goal is to repackage any of these, I'm not sure that will be
> possible with any of the following, except for Apache Commons
> Modelling, but is that actually an implementation?
> For information on compatibility of other open source licenses with
> the ASL, see: http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> On 7/13/06, Sanket Sharma <sanketsharma@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just wanted an opinion about JMX implementation to use for Derby. I
> > have listed the better known implementations below with my comments:
> >
> >         1. For Sun JDK/JVM prior to version 1.5 Sun's references implemenation is
> >             available as a seperate jar download. Applications running on JVM 1.3
> >             and 1.4 will need to download install this jar.
> We can't repackage this jar, as the terms of Sun's BCL are
> incompatible with the ASL. But perhaps we could detect its presence
> and start the JMX services if an implementation is present.

Maybe we can put it under "Required Software" in the Derby INSTALL and
BUILD document? or we can make the entire service optional? If the
user is aware of requirements and wants to use JMX, either he can
install JRE1.5 and above or download the jar, set the classpath and
start application with command line option to start the JMX modules?
We specify the details in BUILD and INSTALL documents, the way BUILD
document guides a user to download JCE and other optional components.

> >          3. Apache Commons Modeller framework
> Sounds like this would aid your development, but do you still need an
> implementation? At any rate, we could repackage it if its needed at
> runtime.

Yes, I will still require an implementation.
> >          4. MX4J
> This has a modified BSD license with an advertising clause, and a
> restriction to downstream projects on naming. Not that we'd ever name
> our project MX4J, but it's an extra restriction that isn't in the ASL,
> so we might need to get a determination from legal-discuss on whether
> this is acceptable to redistribute.

I was not really aware of the legal implications and would like to
thank you for it. I will read the Apache license terms and revert back
in a while.

Best Regards

View raw message