Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-Id:From:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer;
  b=juRyKbd84iWTAcqOl+ag6l121oZEZLrYSLJyn8WsTTXfl0m61hRn+d0G6jumfLEw5ZAxzshO/D+ZHwNsIinpkkYsQuf6QYLo7gAPFOmVArZHVkBqCM3JOyWyOQRLTIQLBzyegbve3+//Rb7I63uxlz3Q9jGAiFIxyI2bOJ7uUD4=
  ;
Message-Id: <6CC4E5A6-67C4-4413-82C3-29EE16B832AD@yahoo.com>
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <A23C5F19-AF5C-4E07-87A7-6C3FC5332619@SUN.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: internal-repository??
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:16:17 -0800
References: <49260730.2060000@alum.mit.edu>
 <A23C5F19-AF5C-4E07-87A7-6C3FC5332619@SUN.com>


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!
>