www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <rdon...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Axis2 dependencies mostly with ASL ?
Date Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:52:19 GMT
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 16:35 +0100, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Well, I believe that the following svn commit comment:
> > Removing org.w3c.dom.xpath interfaces from Xerces source tree.
> > These belong in xml-commons and will become part of xml-apis.jar.
> >   
> means indeed, as I expected, that this is neither from Software from 
> Apache Foundation nor under Apache license. So copying it from there is 
> not correct, I feel. And I find this is a problem.

perhaps you are confusing packaging with copyright, and copyright with
licensing

when creating a clean implementation, you start with the specification
and then create the appropriate classes in the appropriate packages.
just because a class is in org.w3c.* does not imply that it was not
created at apache.

> There has been serveral times where this xml-apis.jar was put partially 
> in source form in some Apache tree but, I think many know this,  it is 
> only a commodity package made of several others, including the once 
> infamously licensed JAXP and the public-domain-sax.

sax is in the public domain this means that it can be included in a
composite work which is apache licensed. i suspect that the JAXP classes
were donated by Sun and IBM and are therefore covered by a software
grant agreement. (i would need to check the paperwork to be certain.)

changes have been introduced to make access to this information more
obvious. see  http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html.

> As for xmlbeans, it seems, indeed, that there's a stax that's apache 
> licensed... But why is there no pointer as to when or how?

IIRC that this was specifically donated from BEA to the xmlbeans project
but you'll need to dig in the archives to find out...
 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlbeans/trunk/NOTICE.txt?view=markup&pathrev=312915
> this seems to mention some stax (jsr-173) is under apache license. the 
> referenced project is a C++ project, nothing related, related seems 
> http://www.xmlpull.org/ but that is not StAX!
> 
> I seem always *very very dubious* every time I see a javax.* or java.* 
> package that is under Apache license (I know jaxp has gone such, and 
> heard for such alone). 

the JCP produces open specifications capable of multiple
implementations. implementations which do not wish to license source
from outside just need to create clean room implementations of the
required classes. 

> The only valid StAX license I know of is:
>   
> http://javashoplm.sun.com/ECom/docs/Welcome.jsp?StoreId=22&PartDetailId=streaming_xml-1.0-fr-spec-oth-JSpec&SiteId=JCP&TransactionId=noreg
> Not surprisingly the javax files found at the downloads of 
> stax.codehaus.org are all copyright BEA or Sun... and do not contain any 
> NOTICE file...

perhaps you're confusing the copyright and license. the copyright holder
may issue as many licenses as they wish for a particular work. they may
choose to grant apache a license which allows sublicensing under the
apache software license whilst retaining the original copyright. 

but apache does need to work harder to make it easier to track the
origins of source and artifacts. i would prefer to see all documents
without a license header to have detached machine readable meta-data. i
would also like to see source covered by software grants to include
machine readable meta-data tying it to it's origins. (and i'm working on
code to help with that.)

- robert

Mime
View raw message