logging-log4j-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <...@qos.ch>
Subject RE: New JMX code in 1.2 alpha
Date Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:27:18 GMT
At 20:05 01.10.2001 +0200, you wrote:
>Ahh!  I got it.  Sun's download site for the JMX offers two options -
>binaries or source.  When you download the "binaries", all you get is a PDF
>white paper and Javadocs.  When you download the "source", you get source,
>Jars, Javadocs and a whole lot more.  That includes the HtmlAdaptor.  The
>Javadocs you get with the "binaries" download contain no mention whatsoever
>of the "sun.com..." classes.  

That is not what I observe. The binary from http://java.sun.com/products/JavaManagement/download.html
contains the relevant jars (jmxri.jar and jmxtools.jar). You have to register to get the zip
file though.

>You and I have been talking about two slightly
>different things, and I have been assuming you had downloaded the JDMK
>evaluation kit, *in addition to the JMX*, since I didn't understand where
>else you could have gotten a copy of the HtmlAdpator.  I've since downloaded
>the JMX "source", and now I see where you got it from.
>*Nevertheless*, I'm afraid the situation still looks bad.  In the
>documentation that comes with "jmx-1_0_1-ri_bin.zip", there are statements
>like this:
>"In this software bundle, Sun also provides classes for an HTML adaptor:
>these are independent of the JMX specification and are provided only for
>demonstration purposes." (in ../jmx/index.htm).
>And this "This last package contains implementation internals that are not
>defined by the JMX specification." (in ../jmx/doc/files.htm, referring to
>the "com.sun.." pacakage).
>"The Java class files of the RI toolkit, mainly the HTML protocol adaptor.
>These classes are not part of the JMX RI per se, but are provided with it
>for added functionality" (on the same page).
>And this, probably the most explicit statement: "Note: The HTML adaptor is a
>tool provided in this software bundle for demonstration purposes. Its
>classes are not defined by the JMX specification and are therefore not part
>of the JMX reference implementation." (in ../jmx/doc/tutorial.htm).
>Finally, the license I got prompted to agree to at download was labeled "SUN
>COMMUNITY SOURCE LICENSE", and made explicit references to redistribution
>etc.  Quote:
>Original Contributor is licensing the Reference Code and
>Technology Specifications and is permitting implementation
>of Technology under and subject to this Sun Community Source
>License (the "License") to promote research, education,
>innovation and product development using the Technology.
>Note that last sentence there.  Essentially, this license grants you what
>Sun refers to as "Research use" rights, which are defined as:
>""Research Use" means research, evaluation, development,
>educational or personal and individual use, excluding use or
>distribution for direct or indirect commercial (including
>strategic) gain or advantage."
>I'm not a lawyer, Ceki, and maybe the ASF will need to involve one, but this
>sure doesn't look to me like the sort of thing you can use in Log4J...
>In a business law class I once had, I remember hearing a term that sort of
>applies here; "bait and switch".  Sun lures you in with the JMX RI, which
>includes an adaptor ("bait"), and then when you're hooked, and you want to
>actually use the thing, they hit you up for licensing fees of many thousands
>of dollars ("switch").  And these guys complain about Microsoft?  Sheesh...

I share your concerns but lets not jump to conclusions. W3C and RAND licensing is even more
worrisome. Regards, Ceki

Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch

To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message