geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Boynes" <>
Subject RE: [jsr109] JAXR
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:22:56 GMT
IANAL, but I believe the issue is with the Supplemental Binary Code License,
section B, para 1, item iv) and v)

(iv) only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that
protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this

(v) agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any
damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including
attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by
any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any
and all Programs and/or Software


> -----Original Message-----
> From: news []On Behalf Of Richard Monson-Haefel
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 12:40 AM
> To:
> Subject: [jsr109] JAXR
> JSR 109 requires support for JAXR. Specifically, it requires that J2EE
> components (ejbs, servlets/jsps, endpoints, etc.) have access to a working
> JAXR provider.  The WS-I supports/condones/whatever the use of UDDI, so we
> need a JAXR provider that at least supports UDDI (version 2.0).
> One way to address this is to write our own JAXR provider, but I
> would like
> to avoid that if possible. Ideally I would like to use the JAXR reference
> implementation provided by Sun Microsystems. What is the licensing issues
> with regard to using Sun's J2EE RI code?  I've heard a couple
> people suggest
> using various parts of the RI in other "subprojects", but I'm not sure if
> that's allowed by the RI license.
> Full functionality with JAXR is (IMO) far more important than performance.
> Its kind of hard to imagine many situations in which a really
> fast JAXR impl
> is needed. If performance is not an issue, than it would be best
> (again IMO)
> to use the RI implementation of JAXR and contribute back to that
> rather than
> roll our own. Again, I'm not totally sure if that's feasible or advisable
> and would appreciate any feedback from Apache wonks or anyone.
> Richard

View raw message