incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: build instructions
Date Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:35:56 GMT
Daniel Kulp wrote, On 4/6/2006 9:26 AM:

>On Thursday 06 April 2006 11:45, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>  
>
>>Interesting.  What is so legally "magical" about the Sun jars being in
>>a kit as opposed to them being in a maven repo?  I don't see the
>>difference.
>>    
>>
>
>Me either, but that's why you and I aren't lawyers.   The lawyers have to 
>make their money somehow, usually at the expense of us.    :-)
>
>
>Seriously, if you read the Sun Binary Code License 
>(http://www.java.com/en/download/license.jsp) which the older Sun jars 
>are distributed under, section B of the supplement specifically lay out 
>the re-distribution rights of the jars.   Specifically:
>(i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled 
>as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the 
>Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software
>
>Putting the jars in a celtix distribution is OK as celtix meets both of 
>those.   Putting the jars into a maven repository where you can just 
>download the individual jar does not.
>
>Anyway, a bunch of Lawyers have looked at the licenses, both from IONA as 
>well as the Maven folks and all have pretty much come to the same 
>conclusion.   Legally, there isn't anything we can do about it.   You and 
>I can complain/argue/etc..   all we want, but the lawyers really have the 
>final say in this case until Sun changes the license (or sets up their 
>own maven repository).
>  
>

This, unfortunately, makes sense to me.  Thanks for taking the time to 
explaining this.  It's very interesting.


Regards,
Alan



Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message