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 Sat, 04 Aug 2007 07:23:20 GMT

On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> Sam Ruby ha scritto:
>>> Until the dust settles, I'm asking that all SUN
>>> PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL dtd's and xsd's be removed.  For the  
>>> moment,
>>> they can be be replaced by CDDL licensed equivalents (if available)
>>> but only if the only ways that particular product uses these  
>>> materials
>>> is directly via their original source form.  If, however, any of  
>>> these
>>> files are used by the product in question as input to a 'compilation
>>> step' of any sort, then they should be replaced by the binary  
>>> outputs
>>> instead (i.e., class "B" artifacts).
>>> If anybody has any problem with this (either affected products as  
>>> this
>>> is an unreasonable burden, or legal-internal folks as this
>>> inconsistent with ASF principles), please let me know ASAP.  In the
>>> event that I don't hear any objection in the next 72 hours, I will
>>> make a minor update to the 3party draft some time next week.

I don't think I understand exactly what you mean, I don't think it  
makes sense, and just in case I do understand you this will prevent  
geronimo from releasing artifacts now under vote.  See below.
>>> - Sam Ruby
> Just a clarification. If a dtd or xsd file is "compiled" into a  
> binary form, my assumption is that the project still needs to  
> identify the resulting file as licensed under the CDDL license of  
> the original source. So the distribution will still need the  
> LICENSE.txt file identifying the binary and calling out the CDDL  
> license.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that apache should not even  
think about trying to host or release anything even vaguely related  
to a sun licensed schema.

Can you explain which of these should be asf licensed and which cddl  
licensed and how exactly you draw the line?
Lets start with the cddl licensed javaee 5 xsds.

1. use xmlbeans to compile the xsds as part of a build process.   
Basically all you can specify is the package of the resulting java  
source files.

2. use jaxb to generate classes corresponding to the xsds as part of  
a build process.  I think this is basically the same as (1)

3. use jaxb to generate classes corresponding to the xsds, check the  
code into svn, and modify it by hand

4. write some classes with basically the same infomation content as  
the schema, and use a rule based approach such as digester to  
transfer the information from the xml to the objects.  I'm curious  
about the status of the rules and the data classes.

5. write some classes with basically the same information content as  
the schema and write some say STAX based code to transfer the info  
between xml and objects.  (i.e. write a subset of xmlbeans or jaxb by  

In all of these cases, when is the source code, whether written by  
hand or generated, cddl, when is it asl, and when can it be  
distributed as part of an apache project.  What would the license be  
for jars containing .class files for these classes?  What about rules  
for (4) if they are in human-readable form?

I can't really see any difference between these cases, so if anyone  
else can I'd really appreciate a clear detailed explanation of why  
they are different.  I also don't really see how a javaee app server  
is any different from these source or class files, since it has to  
contain data structures semantically equivalent to the xsds.

OK, on to a more specific and time-critical question.

Geronimo has the pre-cddl j2ee 1.4 and javaee5 schemas in the hidden  
tck svn repo, and we use xmlbeans to generate classes from them.   
Previously we've released source and .class jars for the j2ee 1.4  
schemas.  We are currently voting on new source and .class jars for  
both the j2ee 1.4 and javaee5 schemas.  This vote will end aug 4 at  
7:17 PST and unless we receive clear notice to the contrary will be  
released to the apache maven repo and thence the maven central repo  
shortly thereafter.
The stuff being voted on is at

In our naivete we have included the asf2 license in these jars and,  
as the source code is entirely generated, not added any license  
header to the .java files.

What's the correct license for the generated source java files?
xmlbeans also generates some binary data files from the schemas.  I  
think (but am by no means certain) that they are serialized java  
objects representing the schema: in any case they have almost the  
same infomation content as the schemas).   What is the correct  
license for them?
After the generated java source files get compiled, what is the  
correct license for them?

Can any of these be distributed from apache?  If not, if we moved  
this stuff to say codehaus or sourceforge, and generated exactly the  
same code and jars (except for the package name), could we use those  
jars in geronimo?

BTW, the theory under which we (geronimo) has been operating is that  
the sun copyright and legal statements apply to the text  
documentation in the schemas and that once that is removed the rest  
forms a part of the javaee specifications that we have a license to  
implement, so we can translate it by any means we want (such as  
xmlbeans, jaxb, castor, etc etc) to produce source code or class  
files or pretty much anything else.  I don't see how it's possible to  
implement the specification without this: IMO without this  
interpretation any javaee product must be cddl.

david jencks

> Craig
> Craig Russell

View raw message