openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: internal-repository??
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:57:08 GMT

On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Fernando Padilla wrote:

> Cool.  It was just a little bit weird.  And I finally realized that  
> it was not distributed with the binary, but it is being distributed  
> with all sources...
>
> I just wish things were cleaner, and all dependencies were from an  
> authoritative source, etc etc.  I wonder if we can talk to IBM for  
> them to release atleast the api (or talk to apache/geronimo to carry  
> an opensource version of the api much like they carry their own  
> versions of all apis ).  Or if we split off the websphere support  
> into its own project (like non-free ubuntu), hosted elsewhere..  and  
> people download that if needed..

My memory is really fuzzy, but isn't this api there to provide easy to  
use encapsulation of a "requires new" semantic, and wasn't there a  
plan to try to get this into ee6?  What happened to that?  This seemed  
like a great idea to me and getting it into a spec api seems like the  
best of all worlds to me.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
>
> Michael Dick wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Obviously IANAL. I think that my comments in the pom.xml file are  
>> poorly
>> worded though and are not in line with the actual license.
>> What I was trying to convey is that we do not include this jar or  
>> any of
>> it's classes with the compiled binaries of OpenJPA. What I did not  
>> consider
>> is that the source code / svn repository may also be considered our
>> distribution of OpenJPA - in which case the jars are distributed.
>> The jars are in the repository so that we can compile against them.
>> WebSphere / IBM provides a proprietary interface which we can use  
>> to iteract
>> with the transaction service in a user friendly manner. Rather than
>> maintaining our own stub implementation (which I thought would irk  
>> IBM) we
>> obtained a license agreement with IBM to use the jar, but (AFAIK)  
>> they did
>> not want us to publish it (ie to a maven repository).
>> As far as I know it has not been raised on legal-discuss. I will  
>> raise it
>> there though.
>> -mike
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:16 AM, David Jencks  
>> <david_jencks@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Fernando,
>>>> On Nov 20, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Fernando Padilla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I'm trying to setup my environment to do openjpa development..
>>>>> Reviewing pom files I ran into this under openjpa-kernel.  It  
>>>>> looks like
>>>>> it brings along a mini embedded repository.  For something that  
>>>>> "cannot be
>>>>> re-distributed".  If it can't be "re-distributed", then we are  
>>>>> not allowed
>>>>> to include it in svn.
>>>>>
>>>> Where did you get this idea? The svn repository is not a  
>>>> distribution.
>>>>
>>> I think that argument is specious.  I think there's some consensus  
>>> on
>>> legal-discuss that expected svn checkout roots should have hard  
>>> coded
>>> LICENSE and NOTICE files applying to everything you get by  
>>> checking out that
>>> root, IIUC on the grounds that svn checkout is effectively a  
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>> In any case I think the comment in the pom is wrong, since the  
>>> license in
>>> the jar says:
>>>
>>> -------------------
>>> You may use or redistribute the files or modules contained in this  
>>> jar
>>> subject to the following terms:
>>>
>>> The WebSphere Application Server files or modules contained in  
>>> this jar
>>> may be redistrubuted as provided by IBM to you, and only as part  
>>> of Your
>>> application distribution.
>>>
>>> You may not use IBM's name or trademarks in connection with the  
>>> marketing
>>> of Your applications without IBM's prior written consent.
>>>
>>> IBM PROVIDES THESE FILES OR MODULES ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND IBM  
>>> DISCLAIMS
>>> ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
>>> THE
>>> WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF  
>>> MERCHANTABILITY
>>> OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IBM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR  
>>> ANY
>>> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES  
>>> ARISING OUT
>>> OF THE USE OR OPERATION OF THE FILES OR MODULES .  IBM HAS NO  
>>> OBLIGATION
>>> TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR  
>>> MODIFICATIONS TO
>>> THE FILES OR MODULES .
>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> I think this might well mean that it's ok to distribute the jar  
>>> unmodified.
>>> I don't see that this means its OK to include in svn.... has this  
>>> been
>>> raised on legal-discuss?  Since this is an area often subject to  
>>> confusion
>>> and strong opinions it might be clearest for the future if there  
>>> is a
>>> legal-discuss jira issue that's mentioned in the pom.  I don't see  
>>> guidance
>>> on http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>>
>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>> What's the deal with this dependency??
>>>>>
>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>
>>>>


Mime
View raw message