www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Use of proprietary binaries
Date Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:24:31 GMT
Oh it can be used.  If the license isn't appreciated, the implementation
can be replaced.

But can it be shipped?  Due to Henri's appropriate interpretation of 1.
below, the answer looks like a resounding "no".

ralph.goers @dslextreme.com wrote:
> I agree. I know the question asked wasn't "Can we use the dependency?".
> But I think the answer to the question being asked is irrelevant if the
> answer is no. 
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org
> <mailto:bayard@apache.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Small license, so pasting in here:
> 
>     ****
>     You may use or redistribute the files or modules contained in this jar
>     subject to the following terms:
> 
>     The WebSphere Application Server files or modules contained in this jar
>     may be redistrubuted as provided by IBM to you, and only as part of Your
>     application distribution.
> 
>     You may not use IBM's name or trademarks in connection with the
>     marketing
>     of Your applications without IBM's prior written consent.
> 
>     IBM PROVIDES THESE FILES OR MODULES ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND IBM
>     DISCLAIMS
>     ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>     WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
>     MERCHANTABILITY
>     OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  IBM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>     DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
>     ARISING OUT
>     OF THE USE OR OPERATION OF THE FILES OR MODULES .  IBM HAS NO OBLIGATION
>     TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR
>     MODIFICATIONS TO
>     THE FILES OR MODULES .
>     ****
> 
>     1) I don't think it's an acceptable license for us - I'm concerned
>     that it doesn't allow our downstream users to redistribute it, which
>     is an essential part of an open source distribution + the Apache
>     promise to users.
> 
>     2) Whether we're happy with a dependency that does not have a source
>     option - I would be but there may be disagreement. I'm not sure we've
>     had that use case yet. (may not matter based on the first one).
> 
>     Hen
> 
>     On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Michael Dick
>     <michael.d.dick@gmail.com <mailto:michael.d.dick@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > I work on the OpenJPA project and we have an issue with a compilation
>     > dependency on an API owned by IBM.
>     >
>     > IBM provided the API in binary format with a license that allows us to
>     > distribute it with our application (ie OpenJPA). It's my
>     understanding that
>     > we are not allowed to publish the binary elsewhere though (for
>     example we
>     > would not be allowed to put it on my home directory on
>     people.apache.org <http://people.apache.org>).
>     >
>     > I wasn't sure how we could limit the exposure of the API, and the best
>     > solution I  came up with was to include it in version control (SVN).
>     >
>     > As a result anyone who extracts the source code from SVN gets a
>     copy of the
>     > API, and may use it to compile OpenJPA. However we do not
>     distribute the jar
>     > with the pre-compiled binary distributions of OpenJPA. If the API
>     is needed
>     > we expect it to be provided by IBM (WebSphere in this case).
>     >
>     > I'm looking for guidance on how where we should include and
>     document binary
>     > dependencies like this one. Can we include a binary like this is
>     SVN and
>     > just add the approriate disclaimer to NOTICE.txt? Would it be
>     better to make
>     > the API available on openjpa.apache.org
>     <http://openjpa.apache.org> and download it from there as a part
>     > of our build?
>     >
>     > In case it helps the license that the jar was distributed with is
>     available
>     > on my people.apache.org <http://people.apache.org> page at
>     > http://people.apache.org/~mikedd/ibm-uow-license.txt.
>     >
>     > Thanks in advance,
>     >
>     > -mike
>     >
> 
>     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     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
>     <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
>     For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>     <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>
> 
> 

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