geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Janet Campbell" <>
Date Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:03:25 GMT
Apologies for coming late to this thread.  There is interest in using
myfaces within Eclipse and we are currently completing our due diligence on
the code base.  The project has said that they will not be updating the DTD
files to reflect the CDDL license and I believe they understand that to be
what they should do based on this discussion [1].  I haven't been able to
locate a final resolution on that part of the discussion.  Could someone
clarify for me?



-----Original Message-----
From: Kevan Miller [] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Craig L Russell
Cc: Sam Ruby; David Jencks; ASF Legal Discuss; Geronimo Dev List (JIRA)
Subject: Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces

On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> On Aug 9, 2007, at 6:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 8/4/07, David Jencks <> wrote:
>>> I'm a bit confused though about the inclusion of cddl xsds in apache
>>> svn since IIUC you have indicated xsds are definitely "source
>>> code" (I completely agree) and the draft 3rd party licensing page
>>> says cddl source can't be in apache releases.  It doesn't say  
>>> whether
>>> a few files can be in svn or not AFAICT but that certainly looks  
>>> like
>>> it would prohibit shipping an asf jar with any cddl xsds in it.
>> I've updated the draft 3rd party licensing page:
> +1
> Thanks for the update, Sam!

Agreed. Also, thanks for the timely and informative responses. They  
were very helpful in deciding how to move forward on this matter.

> IIUC, Geronimo makes two uses of the CDDL-licensed xsd files.
> 1. The unmodified xsd files are available to the xml parser to  
> avoid downloading the files from the internet during operation.
> 2. The unmodified xsd files are "compiled" into Java classes which  
> are then compiled into binary form for execution.
> The new policy seems to address both cases, assuming that Geronimo  
> chooses to update their copies of the files to the CDDL-licensed  
> versions.

Just to be precise, Geronimo does not currently use CDDL-licensed  
schema files. Moving to the CDDL-licensed versions of these schema  
files is, IMO, the right thing to do. I intend to start this next week.

There's still the question of how the CDDL license extends to the  
resultant binaries. Something for next week, I guess...


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:

View raw message