geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:39:10 GMT
No doubt I''m just stupid...
The new improved xsd still says:

No part of this document
       may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
       written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.

Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such  
prior written authorization?

As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds  
from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the  
top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the  
language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header.  So,  
assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,  
it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4, j2ee  
1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license headers.   
Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at Sun) the  
geronimo project  has spent quite a bit of effort removing all these  
schemas and dtds from public svn.  We'd love to be able to put them  

Geronimo would like at least:

web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd  (already done)


Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd  ( 
portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language, it also  
doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the xsd  
itself.   A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.

many thanks,
david jencks

On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices  
> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd  
> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files in  
> the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest versions  
> from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should be updated  
> to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL license option  
> do we).
> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try  
> to get them updated as well.
> Regards,
> Craig
> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>> <!--
>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>> -->
>> appearing in these two files?
>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd? 
>> view=markup
>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd? 
>> revision=374886&view=markup
>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not be  
>> Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are proprietary/ 
>> confidential?  Am I wrong for being annoyed that someone with  
>> commit privs project would check files into an ASF repo with this  
>> copyright statement, regardless of the technical justification?
>> Bill
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and  
>> educational
>> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>> and policies of the ASF.  See <> for
>> official ASF policies and documents.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> 408 276-5638
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message