openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: internal-repository??
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:28:04 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message