tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <>
Subject RE: Tomcat 4.0 RPMs?
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:48:52 GMT

Since this is a general-interest topic, not only a 4.0 RPM issue, I think
we should make sure this is done right and agreed by all parties.

First, regarding 3.3 - we're not including any external package or
anything that doesn't have Apache licence.

Jaxp and crimson are built from xml-commons and xml-crimson ( both are
Apache packages ). We do check in binaries - which is consistent with
apache licence, but anyone can built them from sources as well.

The only problem is JSSE - it's clear the official RPM
can't include JSSE, nor the classes that depend on it ( since that would
mean the source RPM couldn't be distributed ). We can distribute a
separate RPM with JSSE-dependent classes. That's not a major problem for
linux - since Henri is already building mod_jk, so SSL will be supported
via Apache, which is the best (and fastest) solution anyway.

Regarding the jars included in 4.0 - I do have few issues.

First, how in the world did we got to depend on mail.jar and
activation.jar and the other ?

I believe including such features could be decided by vote, and only
after the PMC and ASF clearly posts the policy that allow such things.

If ASF has any rule that allow us to take any package we want that is
redistributable and use it - that's great news.

If ASF has a list of 'aproved' licences that we can include - that's even
better ( and I hope LGPL makes it to the list - at least it has source
code available :-).

It would be nice to have this posted somewhere - so we all know the rules.

I'm -1 on including any non-apache binary unless the ASF/PMC explicitely
allows it. That's my vote in case this is put to a vote on tomcat-dev -
which I believe should be the case with any features or things of this

I think we should build RPMs including the stuff we know we can
redistribute ( including any of the 3 apache parsers ) - and nothing else.

Regarding the argument that 'it's redistributable, but only as an add-on',
I don't see this on the Apache licence.

If someone downloads Tomcat4.0 from Apache, we'll assume it is covered by
the Apache license. That mean he can rip it in pieces, take any of the
piece and redistribute it the way he likes - and that includes all the

If the binary is not covered by the Apache licence - than I think it
should be made clear this is the case, and the redistribution restrictions
should be clearly documented.

I tought a lot about posting this mail or not - I don't want to
create any flame wars, but I find it amazing that an organization
so 'politically correct' on licensing issues ( see all the GPL
discussions ) is just ignoring the problem.


View raw message