geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Seth White" <swh...@bea.com>
Subject RE: License issues with commonj
Date Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:39:33 GMT
Hi David,

 

I've doublecheck with the lawyers and they have assured me that BEA's
intention is that Apache should not need a special license to implement
the spec or include the specification source/binary files in Apache
source/binary distributions.

 

If you aren't comfortable with the public commonj license, however, BEA
would be willing to grant a special license for commonj like the one
attached (but rewritten for commonj).

 

Regards,

Seth

 

 

________________________________

From: David Jencks [mailto:david_jencks@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:17 AM
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Fwd: License issues with commonj

 

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
contents.

 

Begin forwarded message:





From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>

Date: February 1, 2006 6:00:18 PM PST

To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

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:

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:

 

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

*

* (c) 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