www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Use of proprietary binaries
Date Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:30:37 GMT
Hi all,

I've opened a fine can of worms :-).

I'm not a lawyer but I'll try to summarize. I believe the consensus is that
the IBM license is not palatable for inclusion with Apache source code.
There's some question wrt exactly what IBM is claiming with the license (ie
the copyright-ability of an API), for that I'll follow up with the
appropriate IBM contacts.

If we are free to make our own copy of the Java interfaces included in the
API we certainly do so. If we cannot then the question is where can we host
the version supplied by IBM. Ideally IBM would publish the API in a maven
repository "somewhere" or allow the OpenJPA project the "right" to host it
somewhere. If the API request access control then we can host it in the PMC
area (similarly to the TCKs).

On my end I will contact the appropriate folks at IBM and see if I can get
clarification on what their take is.

Full disclosure : I am an IBM employee, but the thoughts and opinions
expressed here are my own and may not be those of my employer, etc. :-).


On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:03 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.

> Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> > We had this discussion earlier regarding Hibernate jars. We don't ship
> > them but we agreed that projects could optionally depend on them.
> So the question is, where should they reside?  We have a nice repository
> area for PMC's that are separate from the project sources.  If this was
> checked into the PMC area, much as TCK's might be, and the project depends
> on the jar but does not ship it, I think we are in fine shape.
> Mixing such incompatibly licensed artifacts in the source code tree is
> a problem.  You assert developers only check out repositories.  Long before
> I was even a committer, I was relying on cvs for the bleeding edge of the
> project's development, and disagree with your assertion.
> I even do the same for the apr/httpd project, building stubs for those
> libraries which we cannot ship, and providing users README pointers on
> how to obtain the actual backends.
> So we don't disagree, if this is an essential element for packagers to roll
> or for users to obtain on their own, they can do that.  But let's not mix
> it up in the project source code tree where it's liable to be added to some
> derivative, without paying attention to the licensing constraints.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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

View raw message