www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Use of proprietary binaries
Date Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:24:33 GMT
With respect, I think we are putting the cart before the horse.

At issue is whether artifacts with unacceptable licenses can appear in  
Apache public svn repositories.

Let's focus on this question.

Craig

On Nov 25, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

> Linking to another thread (W3C one) - how about we create:
>
> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/read-only/
>
> Some small number of people have access (infra->svnadmins?) and
> tickets are filed to add read only items to it. Such as the W3C data
> and the library below. That wouldn't stop them appearing in source
> distributions, but it would be a fair step and we could put
> information in the same directory as each file to indicate the
> licensing.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Hen
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>> 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. :-).
>>
>> -mike
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 4:03 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net 
>> >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message