www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jim Barnett" <j...@bea.com>
Subject RE: Spec sources in Geronimo
Date Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:56:15 GMT
Niclas:

I'm not privy to the facts in this particular development case, but
generally when folks opt to do their own implementation rather than use
something otherwise available via a Sun Community Source License (SCSL),
they either believe that the SCSL use models and associated definitions
(i.e. "Research Use" vs. "Commercial Use") are not consistent with their
contribution agreement obligations and/or the outbound license
applicable to the project, or they intend to avoid the "sticky fingers"
TCK clauses contained in the SCSL.

The issues I've seen discussed most often relate to the differences
between Research Use and Commercial Use, and how those defined terms in
the SCSL may apply to different kinds of Apache (or other OSS project)
contributors.  In the case of an individual "free lance" developer
working on a project Research Use (defined as "use and distribution of
Covered Code only for Your research, development, educational or
personal and individual use, and expressly excludes Internal Deployment
Use and Commercial Use") might apply to his or her participation in and
contribution to a project with other similarly situated co-contributors
at least as far as the actual group development work being done.  Even
in this case, an Apache-style outbound license which does not
distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use (i.e., implicitly
allows either use mode) of the licensed code is not consistent with a
Research Use SCSL grant.  Throw in some corporate participants and their
employees, however, and it is virtually certain that their development
phase participation in such a project could not be covered by a Research
Use license grant.  The reason?  "Commercial Use" is very broadly
defined as "any use (excluding Internal Deployment Use) or distribution,
directly or indirectly of Compliant Covered Code by You to any third
party, alone or bundled with any other software or hardware, for direct
or indirect commercial or strategic gain or advantage, subject to
execution of Attachment D by You and Original Contributor."  The "direct
or indirect commercial or strategic gain or advantage" language
describes virtually every undertaking of a corporation, including OSS
project participation.

The "sticky fingers" clauses are those provisions that limit
distribution of anything built under the SCSL to "Compliant Covered
Code."  Compliant Covered Code is code that has passed the applicable
TCK.  Conversely you are not authorized under a SCSL to distribute code
that is not compliant with the applicable TCK.  Many projects and
developers want to avoid having any third party "lien" their work by
impairing the project and developer's right to distribute it unless it
passes third-party controlled test suites.

Regards,

Jim     

-----Original Message-----
From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:niclas@hedhman.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 6:29 AM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Spec sources in Geronimo

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 21:38, Brian McCallister wrote:
> My understanding is that these are not Sun sources, they are
interfaces
> and classes written by Geronimo folks specifically in order to avoid
> having to avoid being dependent on the SCSL sources Sun provides.

Considering the amount of effort behind this, do you know what the
benefit is 
supposed to be?
Do you know if they intend to ship alternative "API impls" (or whatever
you 
should call it)? 

Hmmm.. I don't get it. :'(

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message