geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: License issues with commonj
Date Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:59:40 GMT
I actually did read the spec and type in the classes once.  (I think it 
was for the timer spec...?)

I believe that if we do that, we have no problems because of the 
copyright notice in the spec.

I've also discussed this issue regarding the lack of any recognizable 
license for their code w/ BEA and IBM, and they have made it very clear 
that they will provide one if needed.

So the question is, type or wait for license?  I say "type"

geir

David Jencks wrote:
> We have a patch with an implementation of the commonj timer spec.  I'd 
> like to get this into svn soon.  One issue is straightening out the 
> license provisions for the api and implementations.  AFAICT commonj is a 
> joint effort of BEA and IBM.
> 
> The bea website discussing commonj is:
> http://dev2dev.bea.com/wlplatform/commonj/twm.html
> 
> After the download links it states:
> 
> This specification is being made available on an RF basis (as detailed 
> in the Copyright notice of the specification); therefore, BEA does not 
> require an implementation license. If you prefer, however, you may 
> request a license from BEA to implement the specification.
> 
> The specification pdf says:
> 
> 
> and earlier:
> 
> 
> (sorry about the pictures, I can't figure out how to copy out of a pdf 
> otherwise)
> 
> There is a link to a zip of source code for the api.  These files 
> contain the following license statement:
> 
> /* Timer for Application Servers
> * Version 1.1
> * Licensed Materials - Property of BEA and IBM
> *
> * © Copyright BEA Systems, Inc. and International Business Machines Corp 
> 2003-2004. All rights reserved.
> */
> 
> 
> My theory about this is that we might not need a license to write our 
> own api classes from the javadoc, or to write implementations of the 
> api, but that we can't simply check in the existing source code without 
> some documentation/grants from IBM and BEA.
> 
> Since there are only about 14 classes in the api it would undoubtedly be 
> much quicker to simply write out the classes from the javadoc than seek 
> documentations/grants.
> 
> I assume that a patch to a jira issue containing apache licensed api 
> classes, with permission granted to apache for inclusion, supported by 
> CLA and CCLA, would also be fine.
> 
> My interpretation of the statements about licensing are that we don't 
> need a license.  However I'm not at all confident I've interpreted this 
> properly.  How can we proceed?
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message