www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Remy Maucherat <r...@apache.org>
Subject Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:34:19 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 
>> On 5/21/07, Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I raised a similar issue on the Tomcat dev list some months back.
>>> Tomcat contains Sun xsd's and dtd's (e.g. http://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>> asf/tomcat/trunk/java/javax/servlet/resources/j2ee_1_4.xsd) which are
>>> Sun copyright and contain the following restrictions of use:
>>>
>>>       This document and the technology which it describes are
>>>        distributed under licenses restricting their use, copying,
>>>        distribution, and decompilation. No part of this document
>>>        may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
>>>        written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>>>
>>> I was told that there might be documents in the Foundation svn
>>> repository that grant Apache the right to redistribute these files.
>>> I've never seen these documents, despite requesting the information
>>> from Tomcat. Nor do I know how any rights granted by Sun to Apache
>>> might transfer to a third party...
>>
>> Anyone have more info on this one?
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/servletapi/servlet2.4-jsp2.0-tc5.x/jsr154/src/share/dtd/web-app_2_4.xsd

>>
>>
>> is an example of a file with both Apache permissive licensing, and a
>> Sun extremely unpermissive header. It's come up in Freemarker as an
>> issue:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1754236&group_id=794&atid=100794

>>
>>
>> Hen
> 
> Well, it would help if people did the homework instead of asking
> the legal folks to do it for them.  The above file was added by Remy
> as part of
> 
> r266968 | remm | 2002-08-13 09:20:53 -0700 (Tue, 13 Aug 2002) | 2 lines
> 
> Remy, were you still an employee of Sun at that time?  Was the file
> contributed with the permission of Sun?

I was still at Sun at this time, although I left soon after that. I was 
doing setup of the Tomcat 5.0.x repository on their behalf at the time, 
and would be fully supported by the other Sun employees working on 
Tomcat at the time.

AFAIK, a version of these files without the problematic headers exists 
in the various specification documents.

> If yes, then the restrictive header can be removed because it was
> licensed to the ASF under a CLA.  If no, then the file must be deleted
> until it can be properly licensed.

Rémy

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