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: StAX (JSR 173) API source license
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2006 19:52:50 GMT
Jeff:

In looking at the API jar file in question, I'm thinking that there's a disconnect between
the file name and what it really is.  I believe that it is an implementation of the API specification
rather than the API specification itself.

If so, then ASF 2.0 should be applicable to the API jar as well as the RI jar.

In other words, I think you are correct when you say: "If the RI code that implements the
API is licensed under the Apache license, then anyone can take that code, play with it, make
derivatives of it, etc. w/o having to agree to the Spec License or get the TCK, right?"

Regards,

Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:39 PM
To: Jim Barnett
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Legal Discuss
Subject: RE: StAX (JSR 173) API source license




"Jim Barnett" <jimb@bea.com> wrote on 04/26/2006 12:29:49 PM:

> Thanks for the head's up Roy.
> 
> Now that you mention it, IIRC I think that the Java Spec 
> Participation Agreement does lump the API into the Java 
> Specification category by definition.

Jim, 
    Well . . . this is what confused me.  When someone here say "API", do they mean the
metaphysical idea that there should be a class named X, with methods I, J, and K, where the
method calls have parameters A, B, and C and perform the functions . . . . you get the point.
Or does "API" mean the actual jar file that contains the class and method signatures written
in the Java language probably with null implementations.  Its clear to me that the non-code
description of the API is part of the Spec, especially if described in words in the Spec document
itself.  But, I'm of the opinion that once you convert that into Java Language code that
its the degenerate case of an implementation of the API and is software licensed under whatever
license you chose to license it under.  Which, in this case could be the ASL2.0.   

> 
> Hmm...
> 
> Generally BEA gets beat about the head and neck by Sun on JSPA 
> licensing issues like everyone else.  We may end up, as you did at 
> Day, with a Spec license covering the API.  
> 
> That would be most unfortunate because it would mean that to use the
> API a developer would have to obtain and use a TCK to test 
> implementations including the API.  It would also require 
> implementation of the complete specification rather than merely a part of it.

    I'm not sure I followed that part.  If the RI code that implements the API is licensed
under the Apache license, then anyone can take that code, play with it, make derivatives of
it, etc. w/o having to agree to the Spec License or get the TCK, right?   

    I guess if I'm going to start from scratch and write a new implementation from the ground
up, I'd want the Spec License to make sure I'm covered for patents, but if it were up to me,
I'd start with the Apache licensed RI.  Then, I think I'm good.  Aren't I? 
Jeff 
> 
> That is not always be practical or logical from a business/developer
> perspective.  I also think Sun itself is struggling with this very 
> issue on the EJB 3.0 front where they have committed to having 
> separate standalone TCKs for different aspects of the Spec 
> (Persistence comes to mind) but the JSPA doesn't contemplate having 
> one JSR with subsetted Specification and bifurcated testing requirements.
> 
> I'll try and talk to Sun today about this.
> 
> Jim   
> 
> 



Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation  (914)766-1757  (tie)8-826  (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus  (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/ 



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - Release Date: 4/25/2006
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - Release Date: 4/25/2006
 
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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