Return-Path: 
 <ooo-dev-return-7615-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 958717545
	for <apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>;
 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:03:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 12870 invoked by uid 500); 20 Oct 2011 20:03:30 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 12832 invoked by uid 500); 20 Oct 2011 20:03:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ooo-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <ooo-dev.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 12824 invoked by uid 99); 20 Oct 2011 20:03:30 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:03:30 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.213.47] (HELO mail-yw0-f47.google.com) (209.85.213.47)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 20:03:25 +0000
Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so719584ywf.6
        for <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>;
 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=qFd+akZAE3PW8Whna92Q3C6VdFZ3IoY5w3puucYUFl4=;
        b=iNbWmIDH0QMErZqgCvVpDSzHXGkB2QDxhRQlUYbujVw/H2+UWgsk1ArhARPuoxjX7e
         PEDGmt44xm0YsR0jkPs6GEKivFBXVVjlRdOKEygbO/MN/vq1VZdBbirmv61tXVvCiMXV
         1dr9zOKxBRc0SgDbxRZ4MiT2RbWBg0R0km+ns=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.157.161 with SMTP id o21mr18308960yhk.72.1319140984898;
 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.44.99 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00b101cc8f44$981fc9f0$c85f5dd0$@acm.org>
References: <4E9FF0D9.5050409@wtnet.de>
	<CAP-ksoiejtW4kGUnC5SWguN+tN=5nniAP5bdJ0K9rnZxcq=idA@mail.gmail.com>
	<00b101cc8f44$981fc9f0$c85f5dd0$@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:03:04 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAKTa1mjZDMCTesmhGNxn33pqziuAB5J5vGFH3K=-N8KDd0TE5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is the JRE license OK for inclusing in AOO?
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:

<snip>

> It is not clear to me that either of those bundlings in binary releases i=
s
> explicitly tolerated by the information that is provided at
> <http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html>. =A0There seems to be no help in =
the
> older draft either: <http://apache.org/legal/3party.html>. =A0I also note=
 that
> if one is bundling the JVM or building Windows distributions, there are
> library dependencies and API dependencies too, somewhere deep in the work=
s.
> (The LibreOffice folk have apparently stopped any JVM bundling but I don'=
t
> know what they do about Microsoft redistributables.)
>
> It seems that there is more that needs to be said about binary releases a=
nd
> how non-source, restrictive-license redistributables are incorporated in =
those
> releases to satisfy installation requirements and also provide run-time
> services to an Apache release. =A0I thought I saw how that was tolerable =
so long
> as no source was provided and the redistribution terms were honored, NOTI=
CE
> was provided, etc. =A0I can't find anything clear-cut on looking again.

IIRC Apache has historically strongly disliked but tolerated releases
containing non-open-source but appropriately redistributable
artifacts. When there is no clear consensus, there will be no clear
policy.

Would any of the open source options for executing Java code (Harmony,
OpenJDK, etc) work?

Robert