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=iqSaLBhXxN/5UZcHts9qDqcbwPDwdGBeT8zVhVOCbuF5Vvk9PANgBRjo8hy73LQ47EKhkBUhS9EXR18ZWkqUK19agTTi9DTIEsCYsKXfpuCtcrd5+U1f/KDjxAnvG09gIsfxwBHYdtn98NUiShW+CR51sAv0TikqVucwQZbE/ag=
  ;
Message-Id: <C990CDD0-9461-4F98-B322-D54A43A1270B@yahoo.com>
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <2812E3A3-BC46-48D6-9250-CBA3EB44D0FA@yahoo.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: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:33:00 -0800
References: <49260730.2060000@alum.mit.edu>
	 <A23C5F19-AF5C-4E07-87A7-6C3FC5332619@SUN.com>
	 <6CC4E5A6-67C4-4413-82C3-29EE16B832AD@yahoo.com>
 <72c1350f0811210728w49ba9cbeleba9eec5d2963ff2@mail.gmail.com>
 <4926FFC2.1010903@alum.mit.edu>
 <2812E3A3-BC46-48D6-9250-CBA3EB44D0FA@yahoo.com>

IIUC the discussion on legal-discuss is not going too well for  
inclusion of this IBM jar in apache svn.

If the idea behind this jar is the work-in-new-tx "work manager" I'd  
suggest one way to proceed is to have someone who has not ever seen  
the IBM code such as perhaps myself write an interface that allows for  
this and put it in an apache package.  If IBM then wants to use this  
feature of openjpa they can write an adapter between the apache  
interface and the websphere transaction manager.

This would also make it a lot easier for other containers such as  
geronimo to support this technique.

Yes, I work for IBM but I've never seen any websphere code and haven't  
looked at the classes in the disputed jar beyond their names via jar - 
tf.

thanks
david jencks

On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:57 AM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>