geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Fwd: License issues with commonj
Date Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:16:56 GMT
I sent this earlier with some non-text inclusions, and haven't seen  
it get through.  I'm trying again typing out some of the quoted pdf  

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Jencks <>
> Date: February 1, 2006 6:00:18 PM PST
> To:
> Subject: License issues with commonj
> 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:
> 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:

This specification may change before final release and you are  
cautioned against relying on the content of this specification. IBM  
and BEA  are currently soliciting your contributions and suggestions.  
Licenses are available for the purposes of feedback and (optionally)  
for implementation.

> and earlier:

IBM and BEA (collectively, the "Authors") agree to grant you a  
royalty-free license, under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms and  
conditions to patents that they deem necessary to implement the Timer  
and Work Manager for Application Servers Specification.
> 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

View raw message