www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nathan Beyer <ndbe...@apache.org>
Subject Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:15:50 GMT
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org> wrote:
> Le 02-déc.-09 à 20:19, Mark Thomas a écrit :
>>
>> In summary:
>> - use of mx4j is not an issue for any ASF project
>> - that gfact that a project implements a JSR does not require any
>> entries in a project's LICENSE or NOTICE file
>
> I feel this summary is only true as long as the distribution does not
> include any specification classes which is, I thought, the issue we're
> discussing and not at all the redistribution of the reference
> implementation.

The javax.* classes included with MX4J are NOT "specification classes"
- they are MX4J classes, the signatures of which are defined by a
specification.

>
> I've seen many tomcats distribute servlet.jar. That's ok if it is properly
> explained that servlet.jar is from another source and is distributed with
> another license. I've seen this broken many times.
>
> Claiming the mx4j.jar was covered by APL is, I believe we all agree, the
> wrong and disputed thing. Or? And the Apache projects that use it, as I
> understand, should not distribute a jar that is wrongly licensed and should
> split.

MX4J isn't covered by the AL2, but the license it is under is
compatible and acceptable for use with Apache projects. This is my
understanding of the situation.

-Nathan

>
> paul
>
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message