www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question
Date Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:19:26 GMT
Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Do I understand correctly the fear of Marshall

You understand the fear but the fear is unfounded.

> that the claim seems to be that this whole jar is that of mx4j project

Your use of the word claim suggests that you believe the statement to be
untrue. The statement is true. The mx4j distribution is the sole work of
the mx4j team. They are not redistributing someone else's work.

> (this is incorrect in the sense that some elements are from jcp and not the mx4j project)

That statement is just plain wrong. mx4j is *not* redistributing
anything produced by the JCP.

> and that all these classes are compilations of APL-licensed code?

No-one has stated that because that statement is wrong. mx4j has its own
license that is compatible with AL2.

> (that seems also wrong to me, it is licensed thanks to the JCP which, because mx4j
> implemented it, allows redistribution).

Whether or not Sun's license allows for redistribution of Sun's
implementation of a JSR is irrelevant since mx4j is not redistributing
any part of Sun's implementation.

The license for the specification allows "Independent Implementations"
to produce their own implementations of the classes and interfaces
defined in the specification (subject to a few conditions) without
impacting the license used for the "Independent Implementation". The
spec license goes as far as explicitly stating that
<quote>
You need not include limitations (i)-(iii) from
the previous paragraph or any other particular
"pass through" requirements in any license You
grant concerning the use of your Independent
Implementation or products derived from it.
</quote>

> Such practice is indeed, not isolated, however, and I fear it has been a
> crab's nest since long.

Providing that the implementations are independent (i.e. developed based
on the spec and not developed by copying Sun's (or someone else's)
implementation) then there is no issue.

ASF projects do need to ensure that the licenses associated with any
external library are compatible with AL2 before including it. The mx4j
license is compatible.

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

Mark

> 
> paul
> 
> 
> Le 01-déc.-09 à 19:03, Mark Thomas a écrit :
> 
>> Marshall Schor wrote:
>>> The mx4j jar (used in many apache projects, including tomcat, geronimo,
>>> ActiveMQ) claims to be licensed under an apache style license (see:
>>> http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html ) .
>>>
>>> If you unzip the jar file, you find it has, in addition to mx4j classes,
>>> javax.management... classes that appear to be from the j2ee java
>>> distribution.
>>
>> No, they are not from any other J2EE distribution.
>>
>> The nice thing about open source is that you can look at the source
>> code. A quick peek shows that these classes have been implemented by the
>> mx4j team. This is something they are required to do in order to provide
>> a compliant JSR003 and JSR160 implementation.
>>
>> Tomcat does something similar for the JSP and Servlet APIs, Geronimo
>> does it for all the J2EE APIs, etc
>>
>>> Is it OK to distribute these javax... classes with this license?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> ActiveMQ's main jar,apache-activemq-4.1.1.jar, for instance, includes
>>> javax.management... and javax.jms.... classes.
>>
>> Again, as it is required to do in order to implement the spec. As long
>> as the source for those classes was developed by the ActiveMQ team (or
>> obtained under an appropriate license) - which I am sure it would have
>> been - then there is no issue.
>>
>> What would not be OK, for example, would be copying the implementation
>> of any classes from the JBoss source tree.
>>
>>> We are redistributing
>>> this main jar, as well as mx4j, as part of our project (uima-as), and
>>> are trying to get the proper license for this.
>>
>> As long as you provide the proper entries in the LICENSE and NOTICE file
>> then you will be fine. That is the only thing you need to worry about
>> for those libraries.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
> 




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


Mime
View raw message