openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Fernando Padilla <f...@alum.mit.edu>
Subject Re: internal-repository??
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:36:50 GMT
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..


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