www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <p...@activemath.org>
Subject Re: redistributable StAX API (was Re: Axis2 dependencies mostly with ASL ?)
Date Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:03:57 GMT
Dan Diephouse wrote:
> The StAX reference implementation was originally based on xmlpull I
> believe, so that is where that reference comes from.
No question about a StAX implementation... even if the TCK or anything 
such could impact ASF's ability to produce one.

*StAX API jar license for redistribution?*
>> 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...
> The stax api issue is a very confusing one. I believe BEA has assured
> us in the past the StAX API jar is indeed Apache licensed. There is
> probably a thread in the legal-discuss archive somewhere documenting
> this. I personally would like to see the Sun site updated to reflect
> this, and have encouraged the stax group to do so, but its never been
> done to my knowledge.
It was indeed drowned in deep horrible complications.
I think I know by now that BEA intended to deliver only an RI under APL2.
At least this is what appears at:
    
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200605.mbox/%3c9186D1D624F88F469BE0CC4F2DDB970B7E5507@repbex02.amer.bea.com%3e
where a person of BEA mentions changes in the web-page to make it.

*Another approach: Geronimo*
As it seems another approach to this problem is to do as the geronimo 
project does: rewrite the API.
I am not sure this is really authorized, since writing things in java.* 
or javax.* packages seem really to be prohibited by, e.g., the jdk 
license. But the existance of such clearly shows that the Sun binary 
code of StAX API is non distributable.

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200502.mbox/%3c42137ADD.2050606@apache.org%3e

This, if indeed correctly authorized, seems to be the only way I know of 
to make "stax-api-under-apache-license". And the jar should really be 
named specially, e.g. "gstax-api-1.1.jar" or so.

The same policy could apply to all other packages that come from 
outside... but it has to be flagged as such.

What fascinates me is the deeep black silence of Sun legal folks in such 
a list and on such topics. The issue of a redistributable API is turned 
over and over on the list but they still produce such itchy and 
unpredictable licenses. Maybe the GPL+Classpath licensing will sign an 
end to this...

paul

Mime
View raw message