www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject Re: [stax_builders] Re: StAX (JSR 173) API source license
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:32:06 GMT
Jim Barnett wrote:
> Guillaume:
>
> Based on your and Tatu's exchange, I took a closer look at the Codehaus Stax homepage
and agree with you that the page does not make the licensing clear.
>
> On November 28, 2005, BEA's JSR Spec Lead, Ron Benson, provided Codehaus (Chris Fry and
Aleksander Slominski) with updated packages for placing on the Codehaus StAX download page.
 Those packages included a "readme.txt" file explaining the licensing and the "ASF2.0.txt"
file providing the ASF 2.0 license T's & C's as part of the bundle.
>   
> For some reason the readme and ASF license text files were removed from the bundle and
are not provided as part of the download on the Codehaus page.  That contributes to the confusion.
>   
they are there in SVN available for download:
http://svn.stax.codehaus.org/trunk/dev/README-API.txt?rev=73&view=auto
http://svn.stax.codehaus.org/trunk/dev/ASF2.0.txt?rev=73&view=auto
http://svn.stax.codehaus.org/trunk/dev/jsr173_1.0_src.jar?rev=73&view=auto

i was asked to put into SVN and i was not asked (as far as i remember)
to put a separate download. i can do it for jsr173_1.0_api_bundle if
requested.
> That said, Roy Fielding raised an excellent point with respect to the API.  It had been
BEA's intention to offer both the RI jar and API jar under an ASF 2.0 license.  I am checking
with Sun to verify whether we can license the API jar under an ASF 2.0 license consistent
with our obligations under the JSPA.
>
> I will advise the Codehaus team and the thread on the outcome of that discussion.
>   
yes please do.

thanks,

alek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guillaume Nodet [mailto:guillaume.nodet@worldonline.fr] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:44 AM
> To: stax_builders@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: [stax_builders] Re: StAX (JSR 173) API source license
>
>
>
> Tatu Saloranta wrote:
>
>   
>> --- nodetguillaume <guillaume.nodet@worldonline.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Would it be possible to clarify the license for the
>>> api jar on stax
>>> codehaus site ?
>>> It is said that the implementation is under ASL, but
>>> nothing is said
>>> about the spec jar.
>>>       
>> This would be good, but this is completely dependant
>> on BEA. No one else can get things resolved; and
>> progress has not exactly been stellar so far. ;-/
>> (although other people like Alek and myself have
>> access to repository, we are not BEA employees, and
>> BEA as the spec sponsor owns many of copyrights, as
>> bounded by JSR/JCP process I think)
>>     
>
>
> Then it would be nice to say on the site that the api spec is not 
> licensed under ASL.
> I just need clarification for the license of the api jars available from 
> stax.codehaus.org, I did not
> meant any relicense (yet).
>
>   
>>> Also, what about the 1.0.1 jar of this api ? Is this
>>> an official
>>> update of the api ?
>>>       
>> No: API is identical to 1.0; but since the
>> implementation of one particular part of
>> XMLInputFactory had a bug (NullPointerException if
>> jaxp.properties file existed, but had no entry for
>> javax.xml.stream.XMLInputFactory), this was fixed in
>> source. Thus, a patch build. Not even obvious error(s)
>> were fixed (like XMLOutputFactory.newInstance(...)
>> return XMLInputFactory), since official release would
>> require official action from the WG.
>>
>> Also, I am bit puzzled by this rumor that there are
>> multiple incompatible versions of StAX API. I have
>> seen the claim multiple times... but never actual
>> explanation as to what is supposed to be different. Is
>> this just a rumour/misunderstanding, or is there an
>> older revision of the API floating around?
>>
>>     
> Just that it seems very unclear what the reference spec jar is,
> what the license for the tree different jars are, etc...
>
> Also, i ' m not even sure we can rewrite a specification jar only.
> The licensing terms of the RI are not very clear (for me) on that point.
> It seems that implementation have to pass the TCK, or something like that,
> but what about the api ?
>
> I think it would be easier to just rewrite it under an Apache license...
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
>
>   
>> -+ Tatu +-
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>> SPONSORED LINKS
>> Design software 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Design+software&w1=Design+software&w2=Builder+software&w3=Api&w4=Software&w5=Streaming+software&w6=Forms+software&c=6&s=110&.sig=pgmJjW5UT9KS6Y4AcSDlbw>

>> 	Builder software 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Builder+software&w1=Design+software&w2=Builder+software&w3=Api&w4=Software&w5=Streaming+software&w6=Forms+software&c=6&s=110&.sig=tZAMBsqDcQz-ZNNFYep46g>

>> 	Api 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Api&w1=Design+software&w2=Builder+software&w3=Api&w4=Software&w5=Streaming+software&w6=Forms+software&c=6&s=110&.sig=8mzg_qkYJ4BHxfXDB6zczA>

>>
>> Software 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Software&w1=Design+software&w2=Builder+software&w3=Api&w4=Software&w5=Streaming+software&w6=Forms+software&c=6&s=110&.sig=uYQRNcc7lzg-cIhHM8lBfw>

>> 	Streaming software 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Streaming+software&w1=Design+software&w2=Builder+software&w3=Api&w4=Software&w5=Streaming+software&w6=Forms+software&c=6&s=110&.sig=ZMqhP42snRw0Gj9ZtN74tw>

>> 	Forms software 
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Forms+software&w1=Design+software&w2=Builder+software&w3=Api&w4=Software&w5=Streaming+software&w6=Forms+software&c=6&s=110&.sig=d6QL1k6jfwJU6DGERqhHPA>

>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>
>>     *  Visit your group "stax_builders
>>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stax_builders>" on the web.
>>        
>>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>        stax_builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>       <mailto:stax_builders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>        
>>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>   


-- 
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message